Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
That Mr. Richard Tracey be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Andrew MacKay be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Tourism

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Welsh tourism industry.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Despite difficulties for the tourism industry as a whole and a reduction in overall visitor numbers, expenditure by visitors to Wales has remained constant at around £1.3 billion in recent years.
Prospects for growth in the overseas market are good. The Wales tourist board's new Tourism 2000 strategy, to be launched later this year, forecasts a significant rise in overseas visitors to Wales.
I am sure that, with the benefit of current efforts to improve marketing and to provide better-quality attractions and training and the industry's concern to ensure value for money, the prospects for Welsh tourism are excellent.

Mr. Coombs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most helpful answer. Is he aware that, under the five-year development strategy for Welsh tourism which ends next month, the private sector has invested £150 million in response to public investment of £22 million? What targets does he feel would be appropriate under the new Tourism 2000 strategy to continue that excellent work?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. Section 4 grants have certainly attracted a great deal of private sector money. In 1992–93, for example, some £4.9 million spent on 489 projects attracted £27 million-worth of investment. I cannot reveal the details of the new strategy, but I can tell my hon. Friend that it is estimated that it will mean an extra 10,000 visitors to Wales by the year 2000.

Dr. Howells: The Minister will be aware that in tourism first impressions are important. He will know that most people coming to south Wales come up through the Taff gorge, just to the north of Cardiff, and that Redland, which owns an extensive quarry there, plans to add an asphalt

plant to a skyline already cluttered with industrial ruin. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the company does not build that asphalt plant on the skyline and does the best for Welsh tourism by spending a little more money on that plant and concealing it?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to consider the employment aspects of the Redland development. Moreover, he will realise that, in the first instance, this is a matter for the local authority to consider.

Mr. Llwyd: Given that tourism is by far the largest single employer in Wales, may I ask whether the Welsh Office has undertaken any survey into the likely effects of the further downgrading of railway services in Wales—especially as railway lines are vital to the rural economy in areas such as Aberconwy and the Cambrian coast? May I urge the Welsh Office to undertake such an investigation as a matter of top priority?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows that the services provided are a matter for British Rail. I am sure that BR takes into account its capacity to take tourists and deal with the regular influx into Wales by rail at various points.

Public Bodies

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the political affiliations of those people he appoints to public bodies in Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): Some of the people whom I appoint to public bodies in Wales have well-known associations with individual political parties—the chairman of the Welsh Language Board, for example. Information is not, however, available on the views of all such appointees and is not collated centrally by my Department.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not the Minister realise that, with all the attendant unfavourable publicity about the sleaze associated with many of the quangos to which public appointments are made, it is about time he recognised that in Wales those from his own party appointed to quangos outnumber by at least 5:1 those appointed from other parties in Wales? I refer only to the known political affiliations. He should come clean, have a proper list of political affiliations, where known, and make arrangements as soon as possible for all those quangos to become democratically accountable.

Mr. Redwood: I resent the implication that there is sleaze or that the wrong people are appointed. The chairman of the Welsh Development Agency was appointed for his business skills and is a fine asset to Wales. I hope that the Labour party will get behind his work.
The Labour party forgets that, when it was in power, the Wales tourist board, for example, had two Labour parliamentary candidates as successive chairmen and that the first WDA chairman was a former national executive member of the Labour party. The Labour party forgets the many Labour and Plaid Cymru representatives whom we appoint to public bodies in Wales, where we think that their presence would help. What about the four councillors on the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the two Labour


councillors whom I have recently announced as having been appointed to the Land Authority for Wales, and many other appointments? There are fair shares for the other parties, but, above all, we appoint people who are right for the job, regardless of their political affiliation.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of people's political views, where there is incompetence—financial incompetence or even a lack of accountability—it should be exposed and condemned? Will he join me in condemning the remarks at the weekend by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, in seeking to defend the incompetence of the Labour leader of the South Wales police authority?

Mr. Redwood: I quite agree. It is for the House and Ministers to set out the standards of conduct that we expect. In the case of quangos, it is for the accounting officers to be responsible for regularity. In the case of local authorities, it is the Labour party's duty to ensure that it enforces proper standards in every authority that it controls.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does not the Secretary of State accept that a disproportionate number of any political party's supporters on public bodies in Wales diminishes the reputation of Welsh public services? Will he consider the establishment of an independent commission along the lines of the Civil Service Commission to deal with all appointments to public bodies in Wales so that we can be sure that jobs are matched to talent, not to opinions?

Mr. Redwood: It is a novel idea for the Liberal party to have another quango to deal with what it sees to be the problem with quangos. That is typical of the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats. I will not set up such a body. We have advertised and invited the people of Wales to write in with their suggestions for those bodies. Officials are involved in sifting through the talent. They produce recommendations to Ministers which, of course, we look at carefully. The purpose of those recommendations from the official system is to ensure talent and the right skills for the job. We are looking not for a group of party placemen but for talented people who believe in Wales and do a good job for Wales. If Opposition Members want to help, they can be far more constructive and supportive when a good job is done.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State might not look for party placemen, but he always seems to find them. Does he not realise that it is his party's abuse of the quango system for self-serving party political ends—the Conservatives are a minority party at that—that now makes the case for disclosure of political affiliation so overwhelming? The sleaze and corruption that are now the hallmark of his Government are poisoning Welsh public life.
I ask the Secretary of State publicly, will he accept the Labour party's offer of co-operation to set up new systems to ensure public scrutiny? Forty per cent. of the Welsh Office budget is spent by quangos. They must be subject to closer democratic control and not left to the whims of party political interests.

Mr. Redwood: The biggest budgets in Wales are controlled by Welsh local government, which is why the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and

Radnor (Mr. Evans) was relevant. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that Welsh public life is subject to sleaze and corruption, he must account for the fact that so much of the money is spent by Welsh local government. His remarks are a slur on Welsh local government, as they are a slur on the Welsh Office and on the many people working in Welsh public bodies and doing a good job.
Of course I wish to see high standards in Welsh public life. I shall offer leadership with that in mind and I ask for co-operation from all parties and from all those involved in Welsh public life to ensure that those high standards are upheld and maintained. It is the duty of each person on a board of a local authority or elsewhere to ensure that those standards are upheld. I shall, of course, look carefully at the hon. Gentleman's statement that he would like to co-operate. I am happy to talk to him privately if he wishes to co-operate in taking forward the issue.

Housing Grants

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on corruption in local government in Ynys Môn involving housing grants.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): It is for the police and the council's monitoring officer to investigate allegations of corruption or fraud.

Mr. Richards: Is my hon. Friend aware that the director of housing of Ynys Môn borough council has delegated powers from the housing committee to allocate large discretionary grants? Details of those grants, such as the names of applicants, the sites and the amounts, have been withheld from some committee members whereas other committee members are directly linked to beneficiaries of the decisions by the director of housing. All that is taking place with the full knowledge of the chief executive of Ynys Môn borough council. Does my hon. Friend agree, as I do, with the view of Ynys Môn council tax payers that that scandal has now been dubbed Angleseygate?

Mr. Jones: I can appreciate the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. It is, of course, for local authorities to set their own powers of delegation. I would trust and expect the council's monitoring officer most carefully to consider all such allegations.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister agree that any allegation of corruption against any local authority must be thoroughly investigated by the proper channels? Those allegations have been circulating privately since 10 January. The people of Ynys Môn would take them far more seriously if they had been made openly, without delay and without the cover of parliamentary privilege. To prevent political manipulation of the file to which the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) referred, will the Minister ensure that the allegations are handed over by the Welsh Office to the appropriate statutory authorities so that if they are proved they can be dealt with properly?

Mr. Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about ensuring that these allegations—any such allegations—are thoroughly investigated. Any evidence that is available can


be given either to the police or to the monitoring officer. I am sure that that would greatly assist either or both in pursuing the allegations.

Welsh Development Agency

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the post of chairman of the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have received one letter from a member of the public.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that, as we now have more quangos in Cardiff than there are gondolas in Venice, it is high time that Conservatives agreed with us and gave assurances to the House that they can now clean up their act as regards appointments to these top jobs? Does he agree that the Secretary of State has been exceedingly badly damaged by what has happened over the appointment of the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency? That is, no doubt, why he has asked his junior Minister to answer this question.
Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is time that he gave us an assurance that there will be no political croneyism or nepotism in appointments to the posts of chief executive, finance director and, if there is a vacancy, deputy chairman of the Welsh Development Agency? That would assure us all that, from now on, quangos in Wales will not used as a dumping ground for those who cannot win elections in Wales by normal democratic means.

Mr. Jones: No, I certainly do not agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sought to respond earlier this afternoon on that very issue. He has not been damaged by the allegations. It is the sleazy who perceive sleaze in everything. My right hon. Friend always seeks to appoint the best person to the job.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most recent figures for unemployment in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Redwood: The December 1993 seasonally adjusted figures show 126,100 unemployed—7,900 fewer than in January 1993.

Mr. Luff: What does my right hon. Friend think would do more to continue the reduction of unemployment in Wales—the continuation of the Government's policies of open markets and free trade, resistance to the imposition of the social chapter, which would have done so much to boost inward investment in the Principality, or the continuation of the rather unpleasant witch hunts of quangos in Wales that we have seen from Labour Members and the implementation of proposals in the European Socialist party manifesto?

Mr. Redwood: That was not too taxing a question. I agree that it is the continuation of our policies of low interest rates, low inflation, going for growth, backing Wales and believing in Wales that will deliver the jobs that we need and the prosperity that we want. It is exactly the failed policies that we hear from Labour Members that will cause trouble, run Wales down and do damage. The

European Socialist party manifesto would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs across Europe if it were ever adopted.

Mr. Rowlands: Although many good things have been done in the valleys initiative over the past five years, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during that period there were 3 per cent. fewer people in employment in the valleys, although the number went up by 4 per cent. in Wales as a whole, 6,400 fewer manufacturing jobs and more than 20,000 fewer mining jobs? Whatever good has been done, much more needs to be done. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to improve the situation in our communities?

Mr. Redwood: I agree that more needs to be done. The hon. Gentleman would also agree that there has already been a massive transformation in the valleys and that the employment position is a lot better than it would have been without those initiatives and without the action that we have taken over several years. I have launched the next phase of the valleys initiative. I wish to see more land cleared, more investment attracted and more action taken to create jobs in those valleys communities, and that is exactly what I pledge to continue doing.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most important factors in attracting more jobs to Wales is to maximise the benefit that we get from the European Community? In that context, does he recall the article in last Monday's Glasgow Herald in which it is reported:
Among his other nutty notions is a fancy for shutting down the Wales European Centre"?
Can he give a categorical assurance that he has no intention whatever of closing down the Wales European centre in Brussels?

Mr. Redwood: I agree that we need to get the most out of our membership of the European Community. I certainly have not asked to close that centre, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will visit later this week.

Mr. Murphy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, during the past year, more than 1,000 of my constituents have lost their manufacturing jobs at Parke Davis, Du Pont, Royal Ordnance, Ferranti and Lucas-Girling? Does he realise that the prospect of those people returning to full-time employment has been dramatically reduced by his Government's planned tax increases in April, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already admitted will damage the British economy and, therefore, the Welsh economy?

Mr. Redwood: The Treasury has forecast good growth for the United Kingdom as a whole and, within that, for Wales. Of course, those figures took full account of the tax rates that will apply across the year of that forecast. The good news is that Wales and Britain are leading Europe out of recession. We are growing when other countries are not growing and we are generating jobs when they are not generating jobs. I regret any loss of jobs and I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but we are creating new jobs to replace them. There are good signs, and the best news of all is that since 1986 long-term unemployment in Wales has fallen by 40 per cent.

Employment

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to increase the percentage of the Welsh work force who are in full-time employment.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The best means of increasing employment in the longer term is through low inflation and sustainable growth, which are being achieved by the Government's economic policies.
The number of full-time employees in employment in Wales increased between March and September 1993 by 3,000. The number of self-employed people in Wales increased by a massive 14,000 over the same period.

Mr. Flynn: How will that process be helped by the decision at the weekend to throw to the wolves and auction off to the highest bidder the jobs at the Accounts Services Agency? In the darkness, not of the implications but of the proof of the sleaze and corruption in Welsh society, why are the Government commercialising an agency that handles £10 billion of public money? Why do they persist in wrecking the civil service and vandalising and degrading the civil service ethic, which can never be replaced once it is destroyed? It is not "back to basics" but forward to degradation. Have the Government gone mad?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman discussed the matter with me last week, and we also discussed the Patent Office and other matters concerning his constituency. Not once during that encounter did the hon. Gentleman refer to sleaze in Wales or attribute any possible change in the status of those establishments to such factors. He knows, as well as I do, that matters concerning the Accounts Service Agency are for the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the percentage of women and men in the work force in work throughout the UK, particularly in Wales, is high? Is it not probably the second highest percentage in the European Community? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that comments about sleaze in Welsh employment will do nothing to create jobs in Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend's final point. He is absolutely right in saying that women play a far more important role in the work force than they did formerly. We have seen a transformation in the economy in Wales and, as a result of the new economy, women are more prominent in the work force.
As for Gwent, a great deal is being done in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). The Imperial Park development is in his constituency, and the WDA is also active there. There has been investment of some £925,000 in the urban programme and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has allocated some £1.9 million for next year under the strategic development scheme. There is no doubt that the economy in Wales is recovering and the pace is quickening.

Mr. Ron Davies: There is really no excuse at all for the Government's complacency on the matter. There are 150,000 fewer men in employment this year than when the Conservative party took office. Does not the Minister understand that the cost of lost production and the tax and insurance revenues forgone through the Conservatives' basic policy of high unemployment are themselves holding

back economic recovery? Taking into account indirect taxes, the average family in Wales will be paying £14 a week more in taxes from April this year and will be paying a total of £19 a week on unemployment alone. How does the Minister expect the Welsh economy to recover when it must shoulder such waste?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Welsh economy is recovering, and the hon. Gentleman need only read the business section of this morning's Western Mail to see that there has been yet another forecast of the quickening pace of recovery.
I well remember 1979 when the Conservative party came to office. One of our major concerns at that time was the number of people who were in jobs in Wales and who were subsidised in those jobs. As for taxation, it is absolutely clear from what the hon. Gentleman says that his Government would increase spending, and that the day would come when they would have to increase tax to pay for that spending.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I give notice that I wish to raise this subject on the Adjournment because of the amnesia of the Minister of State.

Madam Speaker: I do not need any reasons from the hon. Gentleman, but I have taken his point.

Religious Education

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on religious education in Welsh schools.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall shortly be issuing a circular on the provision of religious education and collective worship in schools, which incorporates guidance on new measures introduced by the Education Act 1993 and consolidates guidance issued since 1989.

Mr. Greenway: Did not Dylan Thomas, Gwyn Thomas and other Welsh writers—[HON. MEMBERS: "George Thomas."]—and not forgetting George Thomas, teach us that the Baptist Chapel, the Church of Wales and the Roman Catholic Church were the heart of religion in Wales and that Christianity should be central to children's religious education in Wales? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a whirlwind tour of the major world religions, in an attempt to teach children aged between five and 16 about five or six of them, would leave them knowing nothing about anything?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Of course I agree with the poets and those whom my hon. Friend has mentioned, some of whom were great friends of mine. Let me remind him that the statutory requirement is clearly set out in the Education Reform Act, which states that the syllabus
should reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.
Of course we shall place proper emphasis on Christianity when we issue our circular in Wales.

Housing

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been his Department's expenditure on housing through the basic credit approval for each of the last five years; and what proportion has been directed to disabled facilities grants.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Between 1990–91 and 1994–95, the total provision for housing provided through basic credit approvals amounts to over £283 million. The provision for disabled facilities grants for the same period will be £35.9 million.

Mr. Wardell: What advice does the Minister have for people throughout Wales who are being discharged from hospital back into their homes without basic provisions such as showers, toilets and handrails? What advice does he have for them to ensure that the deprivation that they face will end?

Mr. Jones: I hesitate to give direct advice to individuals in the hypothetical situation that the hon. Gentleman has described, but I draw his attention to the action that we are taking in the forthcoming financial year to increase the amount of money available for mandatory renovation grants and the other steps that we have already put in place. We expect to see more people being helped and more grants being given to those who need them and our provisional target for the year is 9,600 further grants.

Inward Investment

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the level of inward investment in Wales in the past five years.

Mr. Redwood: In the past five years, there have been 800 inward investment projects, creating or safeguarding 70,000 jobs and accounting for more than £4,000 million of investment.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that firms come to Wales because they have access to the European Community, without suffering the handicap of a national minimum wage, a social charter or the suggestion of a four-day week? Does he agree also that another attractive factor is that corporate taxes in Wales are lower than in other European Community countries?

Mr. Redwood: That is absolutely right. Firms come to Wales for the low taxes and the good environment for carrying out business activity and because they welcome the flexibility and skills of the Welsh work force. They have always told me that. It is the absence of the sandbags that the Labour party would place on the Welsh economy which is particularly attractive to them. That just shows how important it is to carry on with our methods for greater progress.

Mr. Ainger: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if the hypothesis of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was correct, the county of Dyfed, with the lowest earnings in the whole of Wales—some would argue that it has the lowest earnings in the United Kingdom—would be filled with Japanese factories? It is not. Is not it a fact that the communications problems of rural Wales and its problems with rail and motorway links, are a disincentive

to inward investment and that, over the past few years, the Government have failed lamentably to improve those communications?

Mr. Redwood: People do not come for low earnings; they come for good value from the work force, unencumbered by high social taxes and other impositions. They certainly would not come if there were a special tax on being Welsh, imposed by a Welsh assembly. It is important to bear that in mind.
However, I accept that more remote regions need special assistance, especially help from the Government in improving transport links. That is exactly what I intend to provide.

Mr. Biffen: What is the most recent assessment that my right hon. Friend is able to make of the likelihood of the New Zealand firm Fortex establishing a meat processing plant on the Montgomeryshire-Shropshire border?

Mr. Redwood: I have no recent intelligence, but I was aware of the project some weeks ago. I believe that discussions are continuing.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received regarding the resources allocated to training and enterprise councils in Wales.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have received no recent representations on that matter.

Mr. Jones: The Minister will be aware of the contents of the London School of Economics report on the future of training and enterprise councils in England and Wales. Is he also aware that although the budgets of TECs have remained broadly the same during the past few years, the proportion allocated for direct training has been cut for three or four years? Will it be the Government's policy to ensure that direct training programmes are properly funded? Will the Minister persuade his colleagues in the Government to change the rule whereby newly unemployed people receive training in the first six-month period but not after six months have expired?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend announced a training and enterprise package of more than £147 million for next year. That compares favourably with the planned figure for this year. This year, the outturn will be rather greater and that is in part because of the Budget measures. I assure the hon. Gentleman that sufficient moneys will be allocated to meet the youth training guarantee. We also want better-quality training. There will be money for engineering apprenticeships and an extension of the youth credit scheme. I remind the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he will be aware—that the numbers of people entering training are now decreasing because more young people are staying on at school.

Tax Increases

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the tax increases due in April on economic recovery in Wales.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I share the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who calculated that the recovery in the economy that has been under way since the middle of 1992 would not be prejudiced by the tax increases that are necessary to bring the public finances back into balance in the medium term.

Mr. Williams: In the context of the Government's "back to basics" policy, does the Minister agree that one of the basic virtues should be honesty? The Prime Minister said in the 1992 election campaign that there was no need to raise value added tax and spoke of tax cuts year on year. How does that square with the tax increases that are due in April, which will cost the average family £10 a week—the largest tax increase in our history? Were those promises at the time of the last election just lies?

Mr. Jones: I will take no lectures on honesty from the high-taxing, high-spending Labour party. It would not come clean with the electorate at the last general election. It still will not come clean with the electorate. It will never be believed on that subject.

Mr. Roger Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a simple explanation for the necessary tax increases in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget—a recession which went on a great deal longer and was much deeper than anyone forecast, including every Opposition Member?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The taxation that we are imposing is the minimum necessary because only the Conservative party is committed to the lowest possible level of taxation.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that the recession referred to by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) was created by the Conservative Government?

Mr. Jones: I am amazed. There speaks a Member of the European Parliament. One would expect someone who travels so frequently outside his country at public expense to know that it was a world recession.

Roads

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total spending by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk roads have been laid since that year.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Since 1979, total spending by central Government on the roads programme in Wales is over £2.4 billion, including £434 million transport grant. Twenty-five miles of motorway and 154 miles of trunk road have been completed. Ten major improvement schemes totalling almost 30 miles are under construction.

Sir David Knox: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the level of road building in Wales since he became a Minister almost 15 years ago. What are his plans for the coming year?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that a start on the A40 Llandeilo northern bypass is being made today. Tenders have also been invited for the A470 Pentrebach to Cefn Coed bypass and the A5 Glyn Bends schemes. We are also active with the A40 Whitland bypass and four new starts are expected using transport grant: the

third Dee crossing, the Rithland bypass, the Swansea valley dualling of the A4067 and the Bridgend cross-valley link.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Freemasonry

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with other Departments regarding freemasonry in public life; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): My officials have consulted other Departments about the way in which codes of conduct in the wider public sector deal with freemasonry.

Mr. Mullin: Is it asking too much from Ministers who say that they believe in open government to require magistrates, police officers, civil servants and local government officers who are freemasons to declare that fact? How is it possible to maintain public confidence in public institutions when members of those public institutions belong to a secret society, one aim of which is mutual self-advancement?

Mr. Davis: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when the civil service code was revised in May, it required freemasons and to disclose their membership when there was a conflict of interest. Specifically with regard to the police, police rules make it clear that private interests should not conflict, or be seen to conflict, with the impartial performance of duty. That message is reinforced by specific reminders from some chief constables that officers should consider whether freemasonry and perceived impartiality are compatible. Ultimately it is for individuals to decide, so long as there is no breach of police discipline.

Mr. Meacher: Is not the basis of corruption that decisions are taken in public life, not on arm's-length merit, but because of hidden and partisan relationships? If so, why are the Government so feeble about all this—whether it is freemasonry in public life, or banning tobacco advertising, or gongs and honours for secret services rendered, or the award of large foreign contracts to a small clique of favoured companies without tender and subsidised improperly by the aid and trade provision? Is not that because the finances of the Tory party, and so much of the power of this Tory Government, are built on a wholesale corruption machine?

Mr. Davis: If I can find my way through that little homily to the question, I assume that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we should have some kind of legal requirement.

Mr. Garrett: On what?

Mr. Davis: On the disclosure of freemasonry. If that is the case, I cannot agree that a legal requirement for disclosure would help. It would simply create a vast bureaucracy and legislative framework which would be avoided by precisely the people whom we are trying to catch—those who are corrupt or misusing public office or public money.

Mr. Burns: Has my hon. Friend had any discussions on this subject with local authorities? For example, has he had any discussions with Derbyshire county council?

Mr. Skinner: That should get me in.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) tempts me. I suspect that there are fewer freemasons in the Government than there are members of the hon. Gentleman's family on the payroll of Derbyshire county council.
The local councils have guidelines that cover this matter.

Mr. Skinner: One of the problems about freemasonry, even more so than in the past, is that, as the Government are running organisations on the basis of quangos, patronage and preference, it is pretty clear that thousands and thousands of jobs that used to be done by councillors accountable to the public will now be done by people nominated, in the main, by the Tory Government and their local apparatchiks. The net result will be even stronger freemasonry. That is why Members of Parliament who are freemasons should have their membership recorded in the Register.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is wrong—again. Since 1979, the number of quangos has been reduced from about 2,100 to about 1,400. The hon. Gentleman is adding all sorts of bodies, such as the boards of grant-maintained schools, which are now more, rather than less, accountable to the public than they were previously. As for appointments to quangos, we hear much heckling from the Opposition Front Bench, particularly from the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who, if I remember correctly, was appointed to the West Midlands Enterprise Board—a Labour placeman on a quango that has done nothing but lose the public more than £6 million in the past few years.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department intends to spend in 1994–95 on publicity publications and public relations relating to the citizens charter.

Mr. David Davis: The charter unit has no separate publicity budget. Media, production and distribution costs for projects carried out by the charter unit are expected to be just over £1.6 million in this financial year. The budget for 1994–95 will be finalised shortly.

Mr. Raynsford: On the day when thousands of my constituents and millions of people throughout the country suffered long, cold waits and delays—presumably, once again, because the wrong type of snow was falling on our railway lines—will the Minister admit that what is required is investment to improve our public services, rather than the production of yet more charter brochures, which, as everyone knows, are simply not worth the cost of the paper on which they are printed?

Mr. Davis: Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of British Rail, rather than take his view, I shall take the view of Michael Patterson, the secretary of the British Rail passengers watchdog body, the Central Transport Consultative Committee. Mr. Patterson has said:

The charter is definitely a good thing. The right to claim refunds when trains are late, or the giving of discounts on season tickets on lines where trains are unpunctual wouldn't have happened without the Charter.
That puts pressure on the management of British Rail to run the service properly and to make sure that trains are on time.

Mr. Dickens: Was not it the Conservative party which gave workers their rights, tenants their rights, parents their rights, passengers their rights and hospital patients their rights? This is the only party which has had the guts to come up with legislation to ensure that people are provided with the services to which they are entitled.

Mr. Davis: As ever, my hon. Friend is exactly right. I should add that the Labour party is always happy to talk about rights, but is never happy to do anything about delivering them. These charters give information about the rights that people, in their dealings with public services, can expect. They encourage improved performance and they are worth the very small amount of money that goes into supporting them.

Mr. Winnick: In view of the Conservative Government's appalling record—an all-time low—what will the hon. Gentleman's Department do to improve their reputation? Bearing in mind the fact that the Department is responsible for public relations, may I ask why it has so miserably failed the Prime Minister?

Mr. Davis: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is even less well-informed than members of his own Front Bench. We are not responsible for public relations.

Science and Technology White Paper

Mr. Day: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps have been taken so far to develop proposals set out in the science and technology White Paper.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): The orders for the new research councils have been approved and I have appointed all but one of the new chairmen and chief executives. Sir John Cadogan has started as Director-General of Research Councils and, on his advice, I have allocated £15.5 million of the science budget in 1994–95 for special initiatives in support of White Paper policies. The Council for Science and Technology has met twice. I expect shortly to announce details of our technology foresight programme. The first forward look of science and technology policy will be published in April.

Mr. Day: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of that White Paper to my constituency, with its deep involvement and that of surrounding constituencies in high technology industries. Does he agree that the recent speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee set out clearly the Government's commitment to the future of science and technology as set out in the White Paper? Does he further agree that it is vital to industries not only in and around my constituency but throughout the country that the White Paper and scientific and technological development are successful in future?

Mr. Waldegrave: I firmly agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend's important speech to the


Parliamentary and Scientific Committee was well received. There is general all-party agreement that we need to apply science and technology more effectively to wealth creation and to the improvement of our people.

Mr. Miller: When will we see real progress with the foresight programme? The Minister says that there is broad agreement for the need to make progress, but we really need action. Otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman will just go down as being the Minister for the "foresight saga".

Mr. Waldegrave: The technology foresight programme must involve real consensus among its partners from industry, academia and Government. I shall announce towards the end of this month or early next month the conclusions of the widespread consultations that we held. The programme will be in action this year.

Science and Technology

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to give prominence to the national week of science and technology.

Mr. Waldegrave: My office is providing funds to the British Association for the Advancement of Science to promote the first national week of science this March. More than 1,000 events will take place throughout the United Kingdom and I am sure that many right hon. And hon. Members will want to take part and to help make the week a success.

Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent initiative to improve public understanding of science. Does he agree that is a basic objective of the excellent White Paper that he published last July?

Mr. Waldegrave: One point that came across most strongly to me when I talked to scientists at the bench was that they did not begrudge the expenditure of a little money from the science budget for that purpose. At the weekend, we saw the publication of the rather depressing results of a European Commission poll, which showed that Britain's population is less well-informed scientifically than any other in the European Community. I take that with a pinch of salt, but it was depressing news. There is much work to be done.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: While Britain has 118,000 research scientists and engineers, Japan has 583,000. Japan has twice our population but five times the number of research scientists and engineers. Although the number of British students in higher education has increased from 122,000 to 200,000 since 1987, only 3,000 of them are studying science. Does the Minister agree that there is a manpower problem—and, if so, what is he doing about it?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government have put in place perhaps the most fundamental series of reforms, including the national curriculum reforms, to improve the position. The overall comparison between this country and the average for OECD countries shows that we score pretty well for scientifically and technically qualified people. However, there is no room for complacency. I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that we must do better.

Next Steps Agencies

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what number of civil servants are now employed in the next steps agencies; what was the figure a year ago; and what forecast has been made for the next 12 months.

Mr. Waldegrave: More than 346,000 civil servants, 60 per cent. of the total, are currently employed in executive agencies or other organisations working on next steps lines. That compares with 298,000 a year ago. Functions covering a further 88,000 civil servants are under consideration for agency status.

Mr. Martin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the next steps programme is probably the most radical reform of the civil service for about 100 years? Will he continue to emphasise not only the value for money, but the ways in which accountability is improved, especially in the devolving of decision-making nearer to those affected by decisions?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am a strong supporter of the principle of devolution to decision-takers nearest to the action. That is the principle involved in the agencies. I believe that the agencies are a great step forward and they will be shown to provide better service for people who rely on their services and better value for money for the taxpayer.

Mr. Flynn: Is not the problem that the next step after these next steps is privatisation, contractorisation and management buy-out—the effective destruction of the civil service? As there are 31,000 civil servants in Wales, with more in my constituency than in any other Welsh constituency, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster consider what is happening at DVOIT—the Driver, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology agency—and at the Accounts Services Agency? While those firms are offered to the highest bidder, will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that if they are bought out, they will not be relocated in other parts of the United Kingdom, or in Dusseldorf or Taiwan? Will he make it a condition that if those jobs are sold off, as is currently happening, they cannot be relocated out of Wales?

Mr. Waldegrave: Where better service can be provided more cost effectively, it is right for the Government to look to outside contracts and, where it is right, to privatisation. The Government have been right to pursue that course. I do not believe that it would be legal in the European Community directive to specify where the work should be done when a job is put out to contract. However, the efficiency of many of the organisations in Wales to which the hon. Gentleman refers means that they will be strong competitors for work where it is market tested.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend recall that we are currently looking at the next steps possibilities for AEA Technology in Winfrith in my constituency? Will he reassure my constituents who are employed there that an early decision will be made? That early decision would enable the firm to create more jobs and to expand its excellent science base.

Mr. Waldegrave: Any decision on the future organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority would be aimed at securing a wider market for the very skills to


which my hon. Friend refers. Those skills are great and may, although I do not want to pre-empt any decision, gain from being allowed to compete in a wider market.

Civil Service (Market Testing)

Mr. Garrett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the savings from market testing civil service functions.

Mr. David Davis: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made clear to the House on 4 November, provisional figures for the Departments indicate that savings are considerable. That is why we are pressing ahead with a further programme. Full details and savings from the "Competing for Quality" initiative are being compiled and will be published shortly in the citizens charter second report.

Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister confirm that those savings never include the departmental costs of preparing for market testing and that, for example, the Department of the Environment spent £250,000 preparing to market test its information technology section and has since dropped the idea? Will he also confirm that the largest single contractor under market testing, EDS, which has taken on the Inland Revenue information technology and computing facilities, is demanding an extra £50 million to pay for the proposed redundancies?

Mr. Davis: The original savings did not include the EDS Scicon report. My understanding is that the savings are net of the redundancies and the attributable market test consultancy.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the overall benefits of market testing and state how many more posts will be market tested?

Mr. Davis: The first benefit of market testing is a £100 million saving this year, which could be used to provide some 10 schools or a couple of hospitals or 50,000 primary school places, all of which are important. It also ensures that we have persistently high quality. In all the cases that we surveyed, the quality was at least as good as it was before and, for 30 per cent. of cases, it had improved.

Duchy Council

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to make the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster more representative of the population of Lancashire in terms of gender, race and social class.

Mr. Waldegrave: The Council of the Duchy of Lancaster acts as an advisory body to me, as Chancellor of the Duchy, as it has to my predecessors. Members of the council are selected for their specialist expertise in the matters on which their advice is sought.

Mr. Prentice: Has the Chancellor seen early-day motion 599? It calls on him to open up meetings of the council, which are currently held in secret, and to publish minutes and make them publicly available. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is faintly ironic that the Minister for open government should preside over secret meetings? Is not it about time that he let some light shine in on this murky, shady corner of the establishment?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is foolish language, which I think would offend the many distinguished members of the Labour party who have held my office on exactly the same terms. The council advises me and I am accountable for the decisions that are made.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr Prentice) appears to have a bee in his tam o' shanter in regard to the Duchy fund? Have not the citizens of Lancashire done a great deal better from the fund than did the citizens of Hammersmith when the hon. Gentleman was leader of that council and lost a lot of money?

Mr. Waldegrave: It does not behove me to give advice to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr Prentice), but I urge him—as a Scotsman and as a former distinguished leader of a London borough council—to go a little slow on telling the people of Lancashire how to behave until he has my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) a bit more onside.

BILL PRESENTED

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (GIBRALTAR)

Mr. Jeff Rooker presented a Bill to entitle residents of Gibraltar to vote as electors in an English constituency in elections to the European Parliament; to amend the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Airports (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
The principal purpose of the order is to enable the Government to privatise Belfast international airport. It also takes the opportunity to introduce certain amendments to current Northern Ireland airport legislation to bring it broadly into line with that which already applies in Great Britain. I shall deal with the two elements in that order.
The privatisation provisions are contained in part V, which, when enacted, will enable Belfast international airport to be sold into the private sector. The Government believe that the airport company, as a public body trading on a consistently successful basis over a number of years, should now be allowed to develop further, free of public-sector financial constraints and with the ability to grasp the opportunity offered by private-sector markets for capital and other resources.
Over the past 18 months—since the Government announced their intention to privatize—we have been working to ensure that, in legal and commercial terms, the airport is sold in a manner that will bring the maximum benefits to both the taxpayer and the travelling public. In that respect, Belfast international airport will follow in the footsteps of the former Government-controlled Great Britain airports which were sold in 1987 as part of the successful British Airports Authority privatisation.
Part V provides for the creation of a wholly owned Government company—a successor to Northern Ireland Airports Ltd., the public body which operates Belfast international airports—clears the way for the trasferred assets and liabilities to be sold on the private sector. Those powers are contained in articles 51, 54 and 58. The Government intend to privatise by means of a trade sale.
Before the sale takes place, however to ensure that there are no contingent tax liabilities as a consequence of privatisation, the property rights of the airport will be restructured in such a fashion as to avoid any adverse tax consequences. I draw the House's attention to articles 52 and 53, which deal with this necessary and important reorganisation scheme.
The remaining provisions of the order update current Northern Ireland airport law, largely to match the position in Great Britain. The new provisions also reflect developments that have taken place in the Northern Ireland airport industry over the past 20 years. The existing statutory responsibility of the Department of the Environment to promote the provision of airports in Northern Ireland is to be repealed.
That duty was considered necessary when the Aerodromes Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 was introduced, but, with the privatisation of the main regional airport and the emerging growth of other airport facilities in Northern Ireland, it is no longer considered necessary. The full list of repeals is contained in schedule 10 to the order.
There are a number of provisions in part II of the order dealing with land, which afford certain rights to airport operators, for example, in relation to compulsory purchase and the protection of property. Part II also updates the present law in relation to certain aspects of airport safety.
Part III has a number of important features in relation to the management of airports, including improved arrangements for the making and enforcing of airport byelaws. I draw attention specifically to article 20, a new provision whereby certain designated airports will be required to provide facilities for consultation with airport users, the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, district councils and other interested parties. The system of airport consultative committees at mainland airports has evolved from similar legislative provisions introduced earlier in Great Britain and the committees have proved a successful forum for interested groups to discuss airport issues and problems with the operators.

Mr. David Winnick: There is, unfortunately, rarely agreement about Northern Ireland issues among the political parties. Is it not odd, therefore, that when there is unity the Government seek to undermine it by pressing ahead with a privatisation measure which is greeted with little enthusiasm by the parties representing the Northern Ireland electorate?

Mr. Smith: We shall have to wait and see, but, even if the hon. Gentleman is right, I believe that the arguments for privatisation in Northern Ireland are as strong as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. In this particular case, privatisation will bring two particular advantages. The first is that management will have much greater freedom to manage and will be free from the interference that automatically comes with Government control. The second is that airport management will have access to private capital markets to gain further investment, a facility not at present available to them.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister is a Minister with a difference because he has—if I might put it this way—matured politically on the Public Accounts Committee where he has spent much of his time criticising the Government for the failures of privatisation and the way in which it has been handled. Will he assure us that he will apply all the lessons that he learned in the many hundreds of hours of deliberations and that this project will not come before the PAC in the future with a critical report?

Mr. Smith: I hope that the PAC will continue to examine all privatisations with not only a critical eye but a constructive approach to suggest ways in which we might do better in future. All the lessons learned by the PAC have been fully taken into account in this privatisation. Hon. Members and others have queried whether we should tackle the issue by way of a flotation or a trade sale. I have examined the circumstances extremely carefully and concluded that, in this case, the taxpayer will get the best value for money if we proceed by way of a trade sale.
Part III of the order contains a number of important features in relation to the management of airports, including improved arrangements for the making and enforcement of airport byelaws. I draw specific attention to article 20, a new provision whereby certain designated airports will be required to provide facilities for consultation with airport users.
Article 19 enables the new owner of the airport to obtain authority from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to appoint constables. The Secretary of State may grant this authorisation subject to such conditions as he may think fit. In effect, the existing Northern Ireland airport police will


transfer en bloc to the employment of the new owner. Under current arrangements, the airport constabulary is under the direction of the commercial management of the airport. That will continue to be the case post-privatisation.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Smith: I should like to develop the arguments before giving way. I am about to explain why we think that these are the appropriate arrangements.
There are precedents for those arrangements. When, for example, the Port of London Authority and Tilbury docks were privatised their respective police functions were retained without any loss of effectiveness. The key point is that the present arrangements work well in practice. For 23 years, the airport constabulary has operated successfully as a discrete organisation under the exclusive control of a commercially driven management, and the Government see no reason why privatisation should be a catalyst for change.
Finally, and very importantly, I have taken into account the views of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of other Government security advisers, who are satisfied with the proposed arrangements for airport policing after privatisation. Hon. Members should note particularly that members of the airport constabulary are already trained by the RUC and will be continuously monitored for performance by the RUC as part of its regular review of security arrangements at the airport. Should policing standards not be maintained to a satisfactory level, powers are available, under aviation security legislation, to allow the policing role at the airport to be taken over quickly by the RUC.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is not the Minister a little confused about how the force is currently looked after? As the airport holding company is a public company, is not the police force under the control of the Secretary of State? We cannot compare the present position with what will happen in the future. Is the Minister saying that the present position will continue? Will the Secretary of State still have a responsibility for the airport police?

Mr. Smith: I am saying that privatisation will not have any practical consequences for the policing of the airport. The key argument is that the constables will be employed, as they are at present, by the airport and will continue to be trained and supervised by the RUC. They will be closely monitored, as they are at present. Furthermore, if the Secretary of State, on advice, is dissatisfied with the arrangements, he will be able to step in and deal with the matter promptly.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will constables have to be resworn on the vesting day of the private company, when they will become its employees? What is the Northern Ireland Airport Police Association's view on the privatisation proposals?

Mr. Smith: The police will not have to be resworn, because there will, I believe, be continuity of all employment arrangements, but I will look into the matter. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's other question when I reply to the debate.
Airport constables who are already authorised to be armed will continue to carry sidearms when the airport is privatised. The Government are satisfied that continuation

of that arrangement raises no significant or insurmountable difficulties. The important point is that the RUC is content with the proposals.
The history and reputation of the airport constabulary are satisfactory and, for all practical purposes, its responsibilities and capabilities will remain unchanged by privatisation.
Part IV of the order deals with the economic regulation of airports. It includes new provisions that mirror the system that has operated in Great Britain since its introduction under the Airports Act 1986. The relevant articles are drafted with the twin purpose of ensuring fair competition between airports and fair trading within them. Airports, unlike most service providers, are recognised as having certain monopolistic characteristics in the provision of air transport services in their region. For obvious reasons, those services are not likely to be duplicated on the site next door.
The Government are concerned to ensure that such monopolies should not be exercised to the disadvantage of airport customers. Airports trading above a certain threshold—in this case, a turnover of £1 million—will have certain requirements on the levying of charges placed upon them. That new system will be handled by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as it is in Britain. It will effectively be identical to the regulatory model that applies to all other United Kingdom airports.
Let me touch on the responses received by the Government during the draft order consultation period. The process prompted 32 formal responses. As a result, a number of minor changes have been made. They include the additional requirement now contained in article 20 that designated airport operators consult the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. Following representations by the Belfast harbour commissioners, it was also decided to tighten up certain provisions relating to compulsory purchase of land by airport operators.
The consultation period promoted lively debate about the method by which Belfast international airport should be privatised, with some support for the flotation option. The Government reconsidered that matter most carefully and concluded that the arguments in favour of privatisation by trade sale remained more compelling and offered the most cost-effective method of disposal.
Curent forecasts suggest that there will be significant growth in air traffic over the next decade and beyond. I believe that a privatised Belfast international airport, freed from the constraints of Government, with greater freedom to manage itself, will be in a position to grasp more effectively the exciting opportunities thus offered. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Roger Stott: It is ironic that, if the proposed legislation applied to anywhere else in the United Kingdom, we should be having a Second Reading of a privatisation Bill, followed by a Committee and Report stage, Third Reading and consideration in the Lords. I make no apologies for saying yet again that this is the most undemocratic way of dealing with a major piece of Northern Ireland legislation.
The Order in Council procedure is the most unsatisfactory way imaginable of dealing with important issues in Northern Ireland. However, as Ministers have


pointed out over the years, the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland will not be restored until the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland can agree on some form of devolved power; I hope that that will happen sooner rather than later.
I note that the Finance Bill, currently being debated in Committee, contains clauses relating to the privatisation of Belfast international airport. The Minister will no doubt be aware that that Bill has been guillotined, which means that, if the debate on stamp duty, which precedes the debate on the privatisation of Northern Ireland's airport, is protracted, the guillotine will fall before that debate is reached, again depriving hon. Members of a chance to debate and interrogate the Government about the reasons for privatising the airport. In short, we have before us a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The order provides for the privatisation of Belfast international airport and gives rise to a series of important questions to which I hope the Minister will reply. The hon. Gentleman will know that the explanatory note issued by the Northern Ireland Office says:
The Aerodromes Act imposed a duty on the Department to promote airport development and extended the powers of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company enabling it to establish a subsidiary company.
The order represents a total abrogation of that responsibility. The very fact that Northern Ireland sits on the periphery of the European Community should lead the Government to play a full and active role in promoting airport development and developing transport links with the rest of the United Kingdom, the island of Ireland, the European Community and the north Atlantic routes.
The Minister pointed out that, to date, the record of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. has been a good one. Operating profits at Belfast international airport soared to almost £4·5 million in 1992–93—an increase of 71 per cent. on the previous year's profits. Given such a glowing testimony, it seems crazy that the Government should be seeking to jettison one of the few economic success stories of their 15 years in office.
In the Government's desperate attempt to claw back some of the deficit that they have accumulated, they appear to be flogging off the last bit of family silver. The hon. Gentleman, in his consultation paper, believes:
It is no longer considered necessary for the Department to have a statutory duty to promote and provide airports.
I invite the House to consider one point. It might not be considered necessary now for the Government to have those powers, but that was not their view when they were accepting taxpayers' money from the European Community for investment in the infrastructure of Northern Ireland international airport. From 1990 to 1993, a total of £7·5 million of grant aid was received from the European regional development fund transportation programme, all of which will now benefit the private company that takes over the airport.
During the debate in another place, the Minister, Lady Denton, stated:
There will be no clawback of the grant on ERDF. That has been confirmed by Brussels."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1166.]
I wrote to EC Commissioner Bruce Millan last year, when it was clear that the Government would go ahead with the privatisation of the airport, suggesting that, on privatisation, there may well be a clawback of the grants that the

Government received. For greater accuracy, I have photocopied the Commissioner's letter for the Minister. It says:
The question of clawback could arise in the event of privatisation. It has been reported recently that the government intends to dispose of the airport by a trade sale. If the purchaser paid the full market value of the business, the proceeds accruing to government would represent the full grant-aided assets, including ERDF aid, and in those circumstances the Commission might seek to clawback a proportion of the aid from the Government.
That is a different story from what was said in the other place. The letter emphasises that the purchaser would have to pay the full market value of the airport. Although the Labour party does not like what the Government are proposing, I hope that that is the case.
We know from recent experiences, however, that to get their hands on fast cash, the Government are perfectly happy to sell Britain's public assets at bargain basement prices. Will the Minister therefore outline any assessment that his Department has undertaken to ascertain the market value of the airport? Will he further assure hon. Members this evening that his Department will only sell Belfast international airport at its full market value?
The Minister has a problem. If the airport is sold at its full market value, the European Commission may want some of its money back. If the Government sell it at less than its market value, the Minister may well be accused of doing that in order to avoid paying the Commission its money back. He has a problem on both those counts. Whatever price the airport eventually fetches, it is clear that the people of Northern Ireland will not benefit from the sale.
We oppose the privatisation of Aldergrove airport. If the Government truly believe that the offer is attractive and that the sale will benefit the people of Northern Ireland, why is the Minister not letting them share such a golden opportunity? Selling the airport by means of a trade sale will do nothing to extend the share-owning democracy that the Conservatives have so often hailed in the past. Yet again, we witness the Government favouring big business above the individual, and private profits above public interest.
The Minister may be aware that I, along with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and representatives of the airport police, met his predecessor to raise a number of important issues relating to the future of police operations at the airport. I regret to say that the outcome of that meeting did not allay our concerns or those of the airport constabulary.
I understand what the Minister has said about the police at the airport, but I believe that most members of the public in Northern Ireland and elsewhere will be asonished to learn that the Government plan to vest police powers in a private operation at Belfast international airport. We support the request from the airport police that they should retain their operational independence. Especially in the Northern Ireland context, it would be highly dangerous for security and policing levels to be decided by managers who were motivated by profit.

Mr. Winnick: What my hon. Friend has said is much appreciated by Opposition Members. Does he know of any Northern Irish political party represented in the House of Commons that favours the order?

Mr. Stott: My information is that there is none. I have no doubt that we shall be able to reinforce that point later when we divide the House on this important matter.
I was talking about the problems faced by the police and about their operational independence. Can the Minister explain what specific policing requirements a successor company to Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. will be asked to meet? Section 2.6(e) of the explanatory document states that the authorisation to appoint airport constabularies
may be granted subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State sees fit.
I should be obliged if the Minister would enlarge on that matter.
Will the Minister tell us whether the requirements include minimum police levels? If so, what are those levels to be? Will they be regularly monitored and reviewed by the Secretary of State or, once the airport has been privatised, will policing become a matter for the successor company, although that company's raison d'etre is maximising profits? Despite the independence of the police at Aldergrove airport, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as the Minister has pointed out, plays an important role in training the officers at the airport. How will the sale affect the present working relations between the two groups? Who, if anyone, will be responsible for assessing training and safety standards, especially with regard to firearms?
The police, who have done a marvellous job at Aldergrove airport for the past 23 years, have asked their elected representatives to pursue the matter. We have given them our support in their wish to maintain their operational independence and their integrity. They are very concerned about the transfer of the airport to a private company whose motivation will be rather different from that of the current holding company.
What about the other workers at the airport? Will their current terms and conditions be honoured by the new company? Will the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 still apply? Will their pension provisions remain the same? Will their trade union recognition and negotiating rights be acceptable? Those issues are important to everyone who works at Belfast international airport.
Last week in another place, my hon. Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, together with many of their Lordships, questioned Lady Denton about the implications of the privatisation of Northern Ireland international airport and how it would affect the current defence and security systems. Security at airports on this island is provided by county forces or regional police forces. At Aldergrove international airport, the position is more complicated, because the security facilities are shared with the airport authority and the Ministry of Defence. Regrettably, there still remains a continuing need for that sort of high-level security to be provided. Therefore, one needs to be satisfied that that level of security will continue.
One is bound to ask two simple questions. First, who will be responsible for security at the airport once it is sold? Will it be the new company, the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or a combination of all three? Secondly, who will be responsible for paying for that security once the transfer has taken place? Clearly, security is an expensive operation. Will the cost be borne by the new owners, or will taxpayers be asked to pay, as they do already because of the problems that we have in Northern Ireland? There are two questions that the Minister must

address: who will pay, and who will have the overall responsibility for security at Belfast international airport once the sale has been effected? I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that those extremely important questions deserve an answer today.
Earlier, I said that the Labour party is opposed to the order and will oppose it in the Lobby tonight. I could not put a better case for our opposition to the order than was put by Lord Cooke, a native of Northern Ireland, speaking in another place last week at column 1161. He said:
We have in place at Belfast International Airport a management"—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase. If he is quoting the Minister, it is perfectly in order, but if he is quoting a Back Bencher, he must paraphrase.

Mr. Stott: The noble Lord was saying that we have a good international airport in Belfast. It is well managed, and makes a good profit. If the Treasury is concerned about the public sector borrowing requirement, Lord Cooke felt that methods could be arranged whereby the airport, under its current ownership, could have the right to borrow money on the commercial market. I agree with him. All those things could be put in place—all those things could happen at Northern Ireland international airport.
The only reason why this matter has been brought to the House today, and the only reason why the Government ate privatising Northern Ireland international airport, is the incompetent way in which they have managed the affairs of this country over the past 15 years. They must flog off every bit of public assets. They are putting up taxes to reduce the deficit that they created. That is why they have come to the House and asked for parliamentary permission to sell this valuable asset. It is not for any operational reason, or any other reason; they want the money to get themselves out of the mess that they created. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to join me in opposing this appalling measure.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: It is the policy of our party to consider each privatisation proposal on its merits. If we find that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, we will generally support the proposal. Of course, if we find that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, we will oppose the proposal.
From a personal point of view, the order has certain advantages. If it is passed, at least we will have one fewer quango in Northern Ireland. However, we are totally opposed to the way in which this vital legislation is going through the House—by order. That alone would perhaps. push us into opposing the order. I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Scott) that the matter is not getting a fair crack of the whip in the House, and it is also not getting a fair crack of the whip in Committee on the Finance Bill. That surely cannot be good for democracy.
Before considering the contents of the order and the principle behind it, I wish to thank publicly the officials in the Department of the Environment who are looking after the privatisation for their co-operation and their consideration of my views during the consultative period. I also thank the former Ministers who saw myself and the hon. Member for Wigan earlier. I should like that to be put


on the record because hon. Members certainly criticise departmental officials and, out of courtesy, we should thank them when that can be done.
Belfast international airport is of great importance to Northern Ireland. Lord Cooke—one of the original board of directors, if I can put it in those terms—certainly made that clear in another place. He also stated that the airport was to be run for the benefit of business and ordinary passengers, but in a commercial manner. The view of the former Prime Minister, Brian Faulkner, has been justified over the years.
The airport is the main gateway into Northern Ireland, even taking into account the ports and so forth. The number of people who travel through the international airport suggest that it is the main gateway. The people of Northern Ireland believe that it should be left in their hands.
It would be possible to change the control of the airport from the present quango situation to a different system, which would put it under the democratic control of elected representatives. Those representatives would be responsible to the voters each time they went forward to be elected. Such legislation would be acceptable, even if it did go through by Order in Council of the House, because it would provide a little more democracy.
As has been said, millions of pounds of European and Treasury money have gone into the airport. That has been matched by the high standards of service and the hard work of the staff in the airport, which reflects great credit upon them. I refer to the workers at all levels, and the citizens of Northern Ireland are proud of the valuable asset which we have in that airport. That asset should be left in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. It certainly should not be sold to what we suspect will be the highest bidder, particularly when the economic situation is at such a low level. We may not get the exact figure that we would be looking for in the best circumstances.
The airport has been run efficiently and economically, and the security service has been given high importance. Sadly, profit will be the paramount motive under privatisation. While I agree that investors should expect a return on their investment, I must condemn the undue haste in auctioning off Northern Ireland's resources.
The privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity is a sorry example. It was presented by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), as essential to lower electricity prices in Northern Ireland. Now even large users of electricity—the only ones who supported the Minister in privatising Northern Ireland Electricity—all Opposition parties and all Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland totally oppose the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. We now know the truth about whether we will have lower prices.
I do not accuse the present Minister. He has only just been appointed to his position, but, unfortunately, he has the job of steering the measure through the House.
At least there was a share flotation in respect of Northern Ireland Electricity and shares were bought by Northern Ireland citizens. Unfortunately, although share owners have profited because the share price is quite high, those who were too poor to buy shares still face very high electricity prices. Belfast international airport is now in line for privatisation, and next in the wings is Belfast harbour. They are some of our assets in Northern Ireland.
We disagree with the decision to refuse to issue shares, but, as a Member for the area, I see a ray of sunshine showing through the Tory ideological mist—that is, the management-worker buy-out offer. I hope that it proceeds. Each of us should wish the application well. If it is successful, people who have worked for years to make the airport such a successful operation might reap some reward for their hard work. Of course, it will also retain Belfast international airport in local hands.
Why was it necessary to include an airport official in article 18(3)(i)? Such matters should have been left in the hands of a constable of police. Article 20, which refers to the consultation of which the Minister made such a point, states that there will be
adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the airport which affects their interests.
Why are the four words "which affects their interests" needed? I should have thought that they would not be required. Does that mean that internal airport matters cannot be discussed, even when they indirectly affect the interests of people using the airport?
A consultative committee is only a consultative committee; what sanctions does such a committee have in respect of getting things done and resolving problems at the airport?
Can the Minister tell us whether a new pension scheme will be introduced? If so, will sufficient funds be transferred to ensure that members enjoy a full pension when the correct number of service years have been achieved? Is there a surplus in the pension fund? If there is, how will it be handled? Will it be used to give a pension holiday to the new company, as happened in the case of Harland and Wolff? Have the present pension fund members been consulted about the proposals to set up a new pension scheme? Have the present fund pensioners and deferred pensioners been kept informed? What arrangements have been made to give pensioners and deferred pensioners a say in the present or future schemes?
As a member of the Social Security Select Committee, I assure the Minister, the scheme members and the Department that the Committee views such matters very seriously indeed.
I shall now discuss airport policing—not security, but airport policing, because there is a distinct difference between security at the airport and policing at the airport. As the hon. Member for Wigan said, we met the Minister. We were accompanied by members of the Belfast Airport Police Association, and we discussed the worries of the association. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I look after the interests of all airport workers, but, having been specifically asked by BAPA to look after its members' interests, I wish to make several arguments to the Minister.
First, the BAPA should remain under Northern Ireland Office control. The Minister almost convinced me that that would be the case, because he said that the Secretary of State would be ultimately responsible in certain circumstances. I also explained that the association was at present under the Secretary of State's control.
For about 22 or 23 years, BAPA members have successfully policed the airport and defended it from terrorist attack. Several members have received honours for gallantry; others have received honours for dedication to duty. As the Minister said, they are trained to Home


Office standards by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the association is rightly regarded as a responsible, professional organisation.
However, under the proposals, in spite of all of those facts and all the nice things that have been said about the police and about the association, federated status and rights of representation are still refused to the association.
It does not follow that 22 or 23 years of co-operation between the present public company—for that is what it is—and BAPA will necessarily continue under any new company. If a private company is in control, conflicts may arise between policing and profit.
For instance, I ask the Minister whether, in a scenario that I shall suggest, the company could force a policeman to admit a key worker if that worker has no identification. There could be an immediate conflict of interest between policing and the ownership of the airport. Because of his instructions, a policeman may say that no one can gain admission without a pass. If the policeman receives a phone call from management saying,"That is a key worker and he must get in to do his business or we will lose money and our profit, so you will admit that man," there will be a conflict of interest. Under such a conflict of interest, will the company be able to discipline the constable?
Will policing and security under a private company be maintained at the very highest level? I am sure that the Minister will say, "Of course it will", but I ask that anyway. Specifically, will the Secretary of State retain the power to make a direction requiring owners to meet security standards? More important, will that be incorporated into the conditions of the sale?
Will the proposed security committee, which has not been discussed yet, so I suppose that we should not really debate it at great length, have its recommendations enforced by the Secretary of State or with the support of the Secretary of State? Will those recommendations continue to update and improve the present security standards at the airport and on the approach roads? Will the Minister assure me that, as the constituency Member, I will have a right of access to that committee? Will he take this opportunity to announce the name of the chairman of the security committee?
If the order is approved, will the Minister tell us what title he has selected for the present force when it is taken over by the new owners? Will he confirm the undertaking given to me by his predecessor in a letter 20 October 1993, in which he said:
I will ensure that the airport company, at the appropriate time prior to privatisation, enters into a formal agreement with the Association"—
that is, BAPA—
recognising its rights to represent the employment interests of its members"?
I await the Minister's reply on that issue.
As the order replaces the Aerodromes Act (Northern Ireland) 1971, I want to draw the attention of the House to the lack of an airports policy in Northern Ireland. The Minister and his predecessors have made no effort to ensure that Northern Ireland airports are complementary and not confrontational to each other. For example, I am very concerned about the position of Belfast city airport. Over a short period, there has been a tremendous growth of 40 per cent. in passenger traffic at that airport. In 1993, passenge traffic rose from 600,000 to 840,000. The company confidently predicts that it will increase to 1·2 million in 1994.
In view of those figures, will pressure be exerted on the airport authority to relax the current self-imposed flying curfew which prevents aircraft from landing or taking off between 9.30 pm and 6.30 am? It is almost certain that noise levels will rise, so the whole situation will have to be examined. I hope that any examination will be undertaken in the context of the recommendations made by the inspector who conducted the inquiry arising from the local plan for Belfast harbour for the period 1990–2005. Those recommendations were aimed at containing airport growth on the basis of noise parameters.
Inevitably, every increase in the number of flights over that densely populated area raises questions of civil aviation safety. It must be remembered that the houses around the Belfast city airport were there before the airport. I am quite sure that the quantity of aeroplane fuel being dispersed over the area will give rise to concern about the health and other effects of such emissions.
It is hardly necessary to draw anyone's atteiton to the difficulties with regard to road access to the city airport. Perhaps some hon. Members do not know about them, but everyone in Northern Ireland certainly does. The situation can only get worse. If the problem is not addressed we shall have a major road hazard on our hands. It would prejudice the safety and convenience of traffic on the Sydenham bypass. Indeed, press reports are already calling attention to the danger.
I have here two cuttings from the Belfast Telegraph. One of them is headed
Lights plea as bypass crash fears grow".
Jim Rodgers and Ian Adamson, who are Ulster Unionist councillors for the area, have written to the Department of the Environment, and Mr. Rodgers is reported to have said:
Drivers simply can't cross this road during the rush hour to get in and out of the airport. People are taking terrible risks, and someone will be killed if something isn't done immediately.
Hon. Members hearing those words may conclude that roadworks are necessary. The point is that if the airport has to cope with more flights, passengers and road traffic than were envisaged at the time of the inquiry the problem lies in the lack of an airports policy in Northern Ireland.
Another edition of the Belfast Telegraph carried the headline:
Concern grows over traffic tailbacks at City Airport entrance: hazard fears on bypass".
A person who drove to the airport to drop off a passenger is quoted as having said:
People were having difficulty getting into the airport, and the traffic was tailing back out on to the Bangor-bound side of the bypass.
Another man, who regularly travels on the Sydenham bypass on his way to work, is reported to have said that he often saw cars tailing back from the airport out on to the road. One of the newspaper articles says that there have been several car pile-ups outside the airport; that passengers, having waited up to half an hour to cross the bypass, have missed their flights; and that taxi drivers are reluctant to go to the airport because they cannot get in or out.
These reports, as well as rumours about airlines setting one airport against another with regard to costs and discussions with airlines, highlight the confrontation that is caused by the lack of an airports policy. What we need is a policy through which the airports would complement each other. We have an international airport right out in the country, away from built-up areas. It has magnificent facilities, provided by public money. Why should not we


have a policy to ensure that the airports complement each other and that each concentrates on what it is best equipped to do? Only in that way will Northern Ireland be best served by its airports—and the taxpayer will get a proper return on the grants provided for a co-ordinated, complementary system.
I object to the way in which this order to privatise Belfast international airport is being considered by the House. The Minister is new to the job, but I travel more in hope than in certainty that, one day, the House will treat Northern Ireland like the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of legislation.
The proposed privatisation has more disadvantages than advantages for the citizens of Northern Ireland. Accordingly, I shall recommend to my parliamentary colleagues that they vote against it.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I apologise to the Minister for missing the first few minutes of his speech. If I ask a question on a point with which he has already dealt, I hope that he will forgive me. The reason for my lateness is germane to the debate, in that aeroplanes waiting to land at Heathrow were considerably delayed by two or three centimetres of snow on the runway. Snow ploughs were clearing those few centimetres of snow all morning. We had no such problems in Northern Ireland—everything was in order at Belfast international airport when we left there.
In common with most Northern Ireland Members, I wonder whether it is worth while participating in a debate such as this. It is like sending for the doctor to attend the wake. Nothing that we say today will influence the decision that the Government have already reached, which is being made law by the infamous Order in Council procedure. From time to time, the Government give reasons why that mechanism must be used—such as trying to bring together the political parties of Northern Ireland to debate their legislative future, but that is not a valid reason. Bills on other matters affecting Northern Ireland are properly presented to the House, and are subject to a Committee stage so that they may be open to detailed debate and amendment. Often, sensible proposals are taken on board and incorporated before a Bill is passed.
However, we are unable to change by one iota the content of this measure. None of the good advice that the Minister will be given this afternoon—mainly from this side of the House—will impinge on the order. Debate is ended, the door is closed and nothing can be changed. Anything that we say today will be retrospective to the consultation that ended some time ago. None the less, one must put down a marker of one's objections.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I support the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He and others who participated in the group talks and in the major consultation that ranged over three years became familiar with the phrase, "Nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed." Apparently, now that we have all agreed, it is not to be done. In other words, the phrase is meaningless.

Mr. McGrady: I shall not be trapped into making a political statement on an order relating to Belfast international airport. The Government have simply

decided that they do not require the agreement of the parties in Northern Ireland. Procedures of the House are necessary to deal with matters of grave importance, such as the privatisation of the public assets of Northern Ireland and it should have been done in a Bill. There was a Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, a Northern Ireland Employment Bill and others. It is not the fault, as is sometimes alleged, of the Northern Ireland parties that such methods are used.
As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said, the political talks were about institution and arrangements and were not about the subject matter of the various orders. We are all doctors prognosticating the life span of a dead body.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party, let me say that I am totally opposed to the privatisation. Therefore, I welcome the conversion of at least one wing of the Conservative and Unionist party to the anti-privatisation lobby today. Perhaps the conversion will gain momentum in that party in the foreseeable future. It was unfortunate, however, that it supported many of the previous privatisations.
We are opposed to the privatisation of the airport and of other assets of Northern Ireland because it is putting into private ownership that which we believe is essential to provide good service to the people of Northern Ireland. Such assets should be retained in the public sector, to be fully accountable to the public and to avoid the excesses which profit making is inclined to drive the sector towards—cost cutting, safety cutting, security cutting and many other aspects which have been mentioned.
A second reason for opposing privatisation, which has been touched on, is the question of real competition. It has been said that Belfast international airport is the gateway to Northern Ireland. That is true, without in any way looking down on the other points of access, be they airports or harbours. Belfast airport is the main thoroughfare through which most of the economic relationships with the rest of the world are conducted. It is the vehicle through which most of the Northern Ireland tourist business is conducted and it is important that it should remain in public hands so that the best possible facility, our window to the world, can be sustained in a fashion that makes it attractive and not the subject of unnecessary cost cutting from a profit motive point of view.
The third reason why I am concerned about privatisation of the airport, as with the other assets, is the question of lack of competitiveness. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) referred to the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. It has been a scandalous failure from beginning to end. The Committee which dealt with the Bill was told time and again that competitiveness and alternative supplies would increase and that prices would be cut, not only for the industrial consumer, but for the private consumer as well. That has not happened. It was pointed out at that time that competition was not possible and would not occur. The fact that it was admitted that there would be no other distribution agency made competition impossible.
No matter where one looks, it is the same. For example, in Northern Ireland, we have no alternative but to buy our telephone services from BT. We must buy our electricity from the privatised Northern Ireland Electricity company. Again, we have no alternative—apart, perhaps, from chopping wood. We were promised the safeguard of a


regulator, but I do not think that regulators have been very effective in other fields; certainly they are no substitute for the ability to shop elsewhere.
Over the past few years, Belfast international airport has received substantial capital investment and has been much improved: that has made it one of the most attractive airports that I, at least, have visited in many years. As the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) pointed out, its friendly atmosphere would be difficult to replicate. I, as a constant user of the airport, have noticed that atmosphere; but first-time users have also remarked on it.
The value of its ethos to Northern Ireland cannot be measured in purely monetary terms. The first impression gained by visitors to Northern Ireland—industrialists, investors, tourists and ordinary travellers—is that of an important "window", and the way in which that window is dressed is also important. I do not believe that a private company will be able to sustain the airport's ethos, or will even care about it, given that it will not put coins into the till at the end of the day.
There was mention of the possibility of a clawback of the public funds used for the redevelopment and refurbishment. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply; it is evident that substantial amounts were invested well after the decision to privatise was made public.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman shares my view that the Government seem to see a conflict between the public accountability of an airport and its economic success. Belfast international airport is publicly accountable; it is also very well managed, and is proving very profitable. The same applies to Manchester international airport: it, too, is very well managed, hugely profitable and publicly accountable—because it is owned by the city of Manchester and the 12 district councils, one of which is mine. I see no conflict between public accountability and profitability in an effectively managed airport.

Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman has emphasised my point, perhaps more eloquently than I could have done. Belfast international is a first-class airport whose profits have risen over the past three or four years as a result of its refurbishment at the taxpayer's expense. Now the fatted calf is ready for slaughter at the altar of privatisation. We shall await the outcome with interest: if it follows the lines of the "parallel 2" privatisations that have taken place in Northern Ireland so far, customers and cargo traders can anticipate a much less satisfactory service.
I should like to know more about the method of privatisation. The Department set its face against flotation or management buy-out at an early stage, without giving any good reasons. Some of the reasons advanced in favour of flotation seemed reasonable to me—for instance, the improvement in the company's profitability since the original decision to privatise. It was suggested that that would encourage wider share ownership in Northern Ireland, or encourage local involvement in a management buy-out. The prospect of improved trading and sales was well established.
The Department—including the Minister's predecessor—fell back on the argument that the company was too small to be floated. Can the present Minister—who is also a chartered accountant—explain how Belfast international airport can be too small to be floated as a public company? I see no bar to such action. It must have been decided at

some stage that there was a line above which a company could be floated, and below which it could not, on economic grounds. Where was the line in this case?
In a press release issued on 12 August 1993, the Minister's predecessor stated:
Whilst it is hard to define precisely the floor below which a flotation becomes inadvisable, I am satisfied that this company is too small to float satisfactorily.
Note the wealth of argument and debate in that sentence; note the step-by-step logical process that brought that Minister to his conclusion! In fact, he did not give a single reason for his decision.
I know that the Minister perceived certain inconveniences in flotation, which turned him away from that course. I should be interested to know what value he places on the company; it appears from what was said to justify the decision against flotation that the Government will sell at bargain-basement prices. The Minister continued:
there are two complications; first, the number of shares to be issued would mean either that many applicants received none, or that each allotment was very small…Secondly, because the company is relatively small"—
this is like hiding behind a bush and shaking it at the same time—
the aftermarket in its shares would be low in volume and hence difficult to manage; selling shares in the company would not be an easy or straightforward process. Again this would disenchant shareholders. Overall, whilst I totally support the general policy of broadening share ownership, I believe in this specific case that the flotation of the company would not serve that policy well.
I am sure that the Minister took good advice on that. I note from the same handout that several consultants were appointed to give that advice, and wonder whether they are putting their names to the statement. I refer to Touche Ross, Alan Burnside Communications and Citigate Communications. It would be interesting to know, incidentally, whether competitive tendering was involved, or the old boys' network. Competitive tendering has been forced on everyone else; why not force it on the Government?

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: In the event of a management-worker buy-out, would shares be offered to management and workers? Would there be no share issue even in those circumstances?

Mr. McGrady: In any flotation, trade sale or management buy-out involving a shareholding company, shares will be involved. They will be passed to the new owner—whether that owner is a corporate body, an individual or a group of individuals, as would obtain in a management buy-out. I see nothing in the Minister's statement rejecting flotation that justifies his decision.
I do not pretend to have a detailed knowledge of this particular case and there may be genuine reasons which can be qualified and quantified. It would be interesting if the Minister gave us the figure above and below which it was decided that a flotation would or would not have succeeded. Will he tell us that, because of X, Y and Z, there should be a trade sale rather than a sale to, as it were, the people of Northern Ireland—either directly to shareholders or through a management-employee buy-out? A sale to the people of Northern Ireland would at least mean that the airport would continue to be operated by the people in the interests of the people.
I read again from the Minister's predecessor's press release and frame a question from the quotation. In relation to encouraging local interests, the press release states:


whilst I will not in any way rule out bids from outside Northern Ireland, I am announcing today"—
13 August 1993—
that I will be asking all bidders to include in their proposal what plans they have for local management and control, were they to acquire the airport.
What has been done by way of asking possible bidders about their proposals for local management control were they successful in buying the airport?
Another issue that has taxed and will continue to tax many hon. Members is the problem of policing and security. Those more experienced than I in this respect have already articulated their grave concerns. I have no detailed knowledge, but I know that changes have already taken place. At one time, all airport security was carried out by the airport police. As recently as last summer, the airport police controlled the periphery and the building itself was controlled by a security firm. I do not know whether the security firm has the same rights as the police to stop or hinder me in my progress without my claiming diplomatic or parliamentary immunity, or whatever it is that one does. It is sometimes perplexing to know who is in control of what.
The airport police rightly have responsibility for the security of access to the airport, but, as one trundles through the access gateway, one finds that a security firm takes over responsibility. At the end of the day, however, someone controls those patrolling the area, which was one of the most interesting questions asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, South. He wondered whether there would be a private company police force in addition to the security firms which have sprung up all over the place. Will there be a private company police force that is not accountable to anyone? This is the crunch question that must be answered, but the Minister dealt with it only in passing.
The Minister has made much play of the good relations and efficient service at Belfast airport, and I can certainly vouch for the courtesy of the airport police. The Minister appeared to say that the transition would not cause any problems vis-a-vis the police. Last summer I spoke to a couple of policemen; I did not do so in an official capacity as I was merely passing through. One of them told me that 23 of his colleagues had applied for early redundancy because of the changes, because of their total dissatisfaction with their lot and with the security companies being brought in and because their future was a wholly unknown quantity. It is important that this aspect of the order is explained before we are asked to pass judgment.
Belfast international airport has a good reputation. It is an attractive, easy and open place and has all the things which an airport should have but which many of them do not have. If the order is passed, I fear that all that is good about the airport will be lost to the people of Northern Ireland for the sake of a balance sheet exercise by a company that is interested only in making a profit.
The airport is a public utility. No matter what legislation is passed, it can never be a private concern. If privatised, it would be a public utility run by a private company, and a public utility must always take account of the needs of the people. The privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity was a mistake because it failed the people, as did privatisation of British Telecom and other privatisations.
I fear that that will happen in this case, and for that reason, I and my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party will oppose the order.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I, too, hope that the House will reject the order. In the coming minutes, I hope to explain the objectionable nature of the order, which has serious implications not only for the people of Northern Ireland but for everyone in the United Kingdom in relation to employment rights and policing.
It is nonsense that we should examine extensive and detailed legislation in this way. This must be the only country in western Europe in which major legislation can be passed after only a brief debate in the legislature without hon. Members having the opportunity to amend or scrutinise it. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) who drew attention to article 18 which has serious implications for civil liberties and also empowers an airport official—not a policeman—to act in such a way as to put him in danger.
In addition, it is simply bad policy. If the legislation were to receive a proper Second Reading or Committee stage, either here or in some devolved Assembly, we could not only probe the Minister's thinking but perhaps persuade him to accept amendments. However, that is not possible because of the crackpot way in which we deal with Northern Ireland legislation. If the order is passed, we shall be making bad law and we shall not be serving the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
The order will permit or trigger the sale of Belfast international airport. I oppose the sale in principle because the airport is the gateway to the Province. It is a public utility and should be legitimately exploited on behalf of the economy and the people of Northern Ireland and retained in public ownership. I have been pleasantly surprised by the amount of pride felt in Northern Ireland for the airport, which is a prestigious enterprise.
Other hon. Members have referred to the lack of an airport policy for Northern Ireland. I can only say, "Hear, hear," but it fits in with the absence of a coherent airport policy for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is crazy that there are no plans for the growth of airports in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. That absence reflects the Government's general lack of interest and will create problems not only in my part of the country—the south-east of England—but in Northern Ireland.
Belfast city airport is a growing enterprise and there will soon be a prestigious and worthwhile development at Derry. I wish both projects well. The growth in airport provision, however, must be planned if it is not to cause problems for users and workers. To let airports grow willy-nilly is profoundly foolish. The absence of a coherent strategy will cause difficulties.
Madam Speaker, the order is a precursor to the sale of Belfast harbour seaport, which is provided for under the Ports Act 1991. I fear that, relatively soon, we shall have a similar debate in which we shall protest about the arbitrary way in which the Government will trigger the sale of the seaport without any examination by Parliament of the ramifications for workers and the community of Northern Ireland and its effect on the economy of the United Kingdom and of Ireland. I regret that. Even at this


stage, the Government should consider introducing a substantive Bill that includes their proposals for the sale of the airport and the disposal of the seaport.
Madam Speaker, the Minister—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has referred to me as Madam Speaker rather a lot. It is gracious of him, but I am a Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mackinlay: I apologise. Such was my anger and passion that I had failed to notice that you had occupied the Chair, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] I mean Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Minister prayed in aid the sale of the port of Tilbury, which is in my constituency. It will not surprise hon. Members to hear that I know something about the history of the legislation that led to that sale and its consequences for the port's work force and police officers. The Government preferred and encouraged a so-called management-employee buy-out. They said that, even if they received a bid that was superior to that of the management and employees, they would, within certain limitations, discriminate in favour of the management-employee bid.
Subsequently, there was a management-employee buy-out at the port of Tilbury and, under the same legislation, a similar sale occurred across the river at Medway. The work forces of those ports were given shares, as part of the supposed "democratic process" of encouraging people to have an interest in the enterprise of their company. They were also encouraged to purchase further shares. I see that the Minister is acknowledging that that is probably what the Government also have in mind for the sale of the Northern Ireland international airport.
Many of the workers who purchased shares have since been made redundant. They feel deceived because, under the provisions of the sale and the ground rules on the purchase of shares, they had to sell them back immediately on redundancy, despite the fact that some had borrowed and others had invested their savings to acquire the shares. If the Minister believes that I am wrong to suggest that that strategy may be followed for the sale of the airport, he should give an assurance that if employees buy shares in Belfast international airport, and leave its employment or are made redundant, they will continue to hold the shares under a scheme created by the order.
The Minister said that the order would bring practices at the Northern Ireland international airport in line with those at airports in the rest of the United Kingdom, which had been disposed of some years previously. That assurance does not extend to policing. Policing at airports under the private ownership of BAA is still provided by public agencies. BAA is required to purchase the service of the police. At Heathrow airport, the service is provided by the Metropolitan police, at Gatwick by the Sussex constabulary, at Stansted by the Essex constabulary and at Glasgow by, I understand, Strathclyde police.

Mr. Stott: What about Greater Manchester?

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reminds me that Greater Manchester police provide policing at Manchester airport, which used to have a separate constabulary. It was deemed proper—I agree with this as a matter of public policy—that it should be merged into the Greater Manchester police because, for security

reasons and to maintain the operational independence of the police, it should not be controlled by people who had a commercial interest in promoting airport enterprise.
The Minister is not bringing policing of the international airport into line with that at other airports but, unfortunately, he will bring it into line with the position at the port of Tilbury. The Port of London Authority police, a proud force and the second oldest police force in this country, which used to police the port of Tilbury, was privatised and is now under the ownership and control of the Port of Tilbury company. That was most distressing to police officers. I know from conversations with officers at the Northern Ireland airport that the suggestion that they should be sold like chattels and a piece of airport equipment is repugnant to them. They are proud of their public office of constable. It is barmy and wrong as a matter of principle that they should be controlled by a private company.
Officers at Northern Ireland airports have seen what has happened at the port of Tilbury and realise that they will lose out in terms of pay and conditions. After a year or two, the Port of London Authority police lost their linkage with the pay and conditions of service of the county constabulary. The pay and conditions of service of the Northern Ireland airport police are linked to those of the RUC. As night turns into day, I am sure that that link will be lost. I hope that the Minister will reassure the police in Northern Ireland that I am wrong and that pay and conditions of service will continue to be linked to those of the RUC.
The Government have totally disregarded the work force of Belfast international airport and its police officers. There has not been any meaningful consultation. Discussions have been prompted by and held under the auspices of the hon. Member for Antrim, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who took the initiative of taking police officers to see the Minister to discuss the matter. So far as I am aware, however, there was no direct consultation of representatives of the police apart from that discussion. Moreover, from what I can ascertain, there has been a total absence of consultation with the trade unions representing the work force at the airport.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no plan to include on the new security committee any representative from the police association at the airport?

Mr. Mackinlay: I am, indeed, aware of that. Even if the Government are determined to privatise the police force at the airport, I find it amazing that they do not propose to allow police association representation on the security committee. Moreover, so far as I am aware, the chief officer of police will not be an ex officio member of that committee. I find that both breathtaking and profoundly foolish.
There is one other matter that I believe would have been examined in greater detail had the contents of the order been taken as a Bill; indeed, I suspect that the Government might have reflected on it and amended the legislation. I refer to the position of the representative body of police officers. At present, the Northern Ireland airport police officers have an association. They have sought the status of


federation but, for reasons which I do not understand, the Government have declined to grant it in statute. That is bad enough.
By the same token, however, the Northern Ireland Airport Police Association does not have the status of a trade union. There is, therefore, a massive void in respect of not only the status of the police officers' representative body but its legal position and capacity to protect and promote the interests of its members collectively and individually. I suspect that the Government are not being malevolent in this; they are simply incompetent. The parliamentary draftspersons and Ministers have not examined the issue sufficiently. I fear that a degree of arrogance may be involved as well. It is wrong that these police officers should have the protection neither of a federation nor of a trade union. I suspect that that situation is unique not just in the United Kingdom but among advanced western democracies.
It is within the Government's capacity to give the airport police proper status, preferably as a federation.
The Minister implied that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was happy with the policing arrangements. I venture to suggest that that is not so. I think that the RUC was asked, "If the police force at Northern Ireland airport is privatised, will you help to monitor police standards to ensure that they are adequate?" One would expect the Chief Constable to say, "Yes, I will do my best." But there is no evidence to suggest that the RUC considers the privatisation of a police force to be a good thing. It is a breathtaking suggestion.
Every police officer in the land—from constable to chief officer—is appalled at the suggestion that any police force should be privatised. It is bad in principle; it is bad as a matter of public policy; and it misleads the public who, not unreasonably, assume that someone in a police uniform is a public servant and independent. Any police officer in the United Kingdom would regard privatisation as a regrettable departure from the traditions of British policing, which have endured for 170 years. The police will fear that the privatisation of the police at the port of London in Tilbury and at Northern Ireland's international airport constitutes a dummy run for the privatisation of other police functions elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is a real danger, and I believe that that will be the view of police officers everywhere.
The Minister has not told the House—but I will—that the chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, which represents the RUC, wrote to the Minister's predecessor in June 1993:
My Central Committee have voiced concern about the future of the Belfast Airport Police with the prospect of an armed and trained Police service coming under the control of a civilian Board of Directors … Once privatised, the Airport will be completely commercially driven in its priorities and, not unnaturally, we cannot help but be anxious about the maintenance of the quality and scope of the Police service at the airport.
That sums up the legitimate fears not just of police officers in Northern Ireland but of any sensible member of the public, who would be horrified to know that a privatised police service was armed. We are being run by a barmy army, which proposes to privatise an armed police force in an area that is critical in security terms. Will the Minister even now pause to reflect on whether the order should be withdrawn so that the issue of policing can be the subject of further consultation and consideration?
Who will decide what is the correct operational strength and rank structure for the force at the airport after privatisation? Will it be the company or the RUC? How will that structure be enforced? I understand that, at present, the Northern Ireland airport police can check out vehicles via the police computer. They do not have direct access but can go through the proper channels at the RUC. Will the airport police still have comparable access to the police computer after privatisation? If so, I am not sure that it is good public policy. If not, how can they police properly? Either situation is undesirable and reinforces my argument that we should not privatise the police and that they should remain independent of the airport operators.
I have already referred to the police officers' pay and conditions of service. Unfortunately, there is evidence to show that there will not be protection. Will the pay and conditions of police officers employed in the force continue to be linked to those of the RUC?
I asked in an intervention whether the constables would have to be resworn. That is not an insignificant point. Article 19 of the order states:
An airport operator authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State may appoint any person employed by the operator to be a constable on the airport managed by that operator.
That seems to suggest that existing police officers, who are proud of their office of constable and many of whom have given lengthy service to the police force at the airport and to the RUC before, will suffer the indignity of having to swear again when the privatised company takes them over as part of the airport furniture and fittings.
The draftsmen have not taken account of that point. I suspect that, unless the provisions are clarified, embarrassment may arise and the powers of police officers who act as constables after privatisation may be challenged if they have not resworn. That illustrates the clumsy and sloppy way in which the order is presented to the House. There is certainly no clarity on that point. I am told that, as part of the exercise leading up to the order, there was a so-called "keypoint" survey to examine what should be the policing needs in terms of location, numbers and costs at the airport after privatisation.
I realise that, by definition, such a document must be kept confidential, but I had hoped that the Minister would make that document available to the Northern Ireland Airport Police Association, because its officers and members will have to fulfil the policing functions. That is a further area where a moral obligation is not being fulfilled by the Government—to consult the people who will have to carry out the policing functions at the airport. It is wrong that there has been no disclosure at least of some of the main points in that survey to the police officers' representative body.
There is a danger with the method of sale that the Minister prefers. Although I am opposed to privatisation, I believe that a floatation would have been more appropriate, because at least the people of Northern Ireland would have had a slice of the action. One could argue that, after a flotation, the airport would still be partly within the ownership of the people of Northern Ireland. Under a sale, which I think the Minister proposes, there is no guarantee that there will be a maintenance of any Northern Ireland interests in the ownership and control of that airport. What is more worrying is that we have no idea who will purchase the airport.
I have expressed some concern and scepticism about so-called management-employee buy-outs, because my


experience at Tilbury is that the employee part of the buy-out is really a sham or a cosmetic exercise and not worth a bag of beans. Many people painfully found that they lost their jobs as well as their shares after a while. Nevertheless, such a buy-out has some continuity and identity with existing arrangements. At Belfast, things might not work out as the Minister intends. Some other enterprise or entrepreneur without loyalty to Northern Ireland, this country or western Europe might purchase the airport. What guarantee is there about the people who might purchase or own and control the airport? if it is purchased initially under the auspices of a management-employee buy-out, it could be sold again in the not-too-distant furture to another party.
The recurring theme of the debate this afternoon is about what will happen to the police. Heaven forbid, a Robert Maxwell type could purchase the airport. I would not want him to have ownership and control of a police force. One can think of other people. The mind boggles at the idea that they should be able to control and maintain a police force. Quite apart from the dangers of impropriety and undue pressure put on police wishing to maintain their independence, there is also a danger that they will be demeaned and abused, for instance as little more than commissionaires, as a front to the enterprise rather than as professional police officers.
What the Minister has so far rejected—I think that he should reflect on this—is that there are alternatives to the sale of the police force. The alternatives are to maintain the force within the ownership and control of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment and for the officers to be leased out, as happens at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Glasgow and Manchester. They should stay under public control—Government control—and the costs should be charged to the new airport operators, thus maintaining their independence.
The airport police could have been absorbed into the RUC. Parallels occurred some years ago at Heathrow when the British Airports Authority police merged with the Metropolitan police and at Manchester when the airport police merged with the Greater Manchester police. The Government have spurned those alternatives. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will reconsider and see that that is in the interests of the Government, the people of Northern Ireland and the proud police officers who feel insulted about the way in which they will be treated should privatisation go through.
I return to a point which concerns me and other hon. Members. If the Government glibly sell off the professional police officers at Tilbury in Essex and in Northern Ireland, who are proud of their office, are those not dummy runs for the sale of police officers' functions elsewhere in the United Kingdom, such as the motorway police? Would not there be a replacement of police officers in public control by static security guards elsewhere? The Minister cannot pretend that that fear is not being uttered by police officers throughout Britain. There is a profound fear that that will happen unless the Government are prevented from going ahead with privatisation of the police force under the order. For those reasons, I hope that either the Minister will take the order back or that the House of Commons will throw it out.

Mr. James Molyneaux: But for world war two, the part of the airfield that was vested from my grandfather would have eventually passed to me. That might, in certain circumstances, have meant that I would have had to declare an interest. Now my hands are clean. I am not the landlord of the airfield. I hope that that does something to relieve the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe).
I derive some satisfaction from article 17 of the order, which no doubt echoes the Aerodromes Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. The article confers on district councils various powers, such as the acquisition of land, planning restrictions on structures in line with flight paths and—this is important—providing or improving road links.
I know that the present Minister, whom we are delighted to welcome to the Northern Ireland debate, even if it is only on an Order in Council, will not mind my mentioning that a predecessor of his in 1977 gave a solemn undertaking on behalf of the then Government that the missing link to the present airport would be completed within some six months. That was when the original road was closed for security reasons. It was not until my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South took over that area from me—and, therefore, represented it far more effectively—that the Department of the Environment got round to constructing the link after all those years.
I do not know whether the Minister has been there ceremonially to open it, but he would have been able to drive along it on the way to the airport. It is commonly known as the Killeen bypass. It is a great consolation to know that the district councils will have an important role, if not all the say, in providing and improving the road links.
Article 20 brings district councils into the picture, because it specifies and interprets the meaning of a district council in terms of the order. Article 20(2)(c) says:
the district council in whose district the airport or any part thereof is situated or whose district is in the locality of the airport
will have certain roles to play in the consultation at least. If consultation is to be effective, that means that adjacent district councils will have some input into the working of the airport under the new management. I freely concede that that will mainly mean Antrim borough council. However, may I put in a commercial for my Lisburn borough council which, like Newtownabbey borough council, is covered by the phrase
or whose district is in the locality of the airport".
I suppose that Lisburn and Newtownabbey could claim that they are under the flight path. Aircraft taking off from either set of runways pass over those two districts in a short time, even before they retract the undercarriage. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South does not have a monopoly on consultation here.
Article 20 deals with consultation. I have mentioned the district councils and the Minister mentioned the provision for consultation with the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. I am especially interested in article 20(2)(a), which refers to consultation with "users of the airport". That might seem to be a very natural concession because without users, it would be difficult to justify the existence, never mind the policing, of an airport. However, we are setting up a body that in some ways resembles the controlling authority at Heathrow; it is not an exact replica,


but it is near enough for the purpose. My next point has a direct bearing on the effectiveness or otherwise of consultation with users.
I sought to engage in consultation when the Belfast lounge was moved from gate 49 to gates 8 to 10, which is a much more remote location in the Heathrow complex. At the time, only one little insignificant sign was provided to indicate where the new Belfast lounges and gates were. Such was the volume of complaints from constituents—my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South and others had a similar volume of complaints—that I wrote to the authority pleading that signs be provided similar to those indicating Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester, which was not an unreasonable request.
I received a rather high-handed reply which stated that it was considered that the signposting was adequate, but that, in the light of my representations, it would be reviewed. It was reviewed and the result was that the one remaining sign was removed entirely, leaving no signs—a situation which still exists. In the spirit of Christmas, I volunteered to purchase 20 posters if the airport authorities would put them up. They declined that offer and we still have no indication for first-time travellers of where they can find the aircraft heading for the airport that we are now discussing.
The British Airports Authority, as a result of other representations made by the Aldergrove airport authorities, various institutions and trade organisations in Northern Ireland, retaliated by making the situation worse. I do not imagine that the British Airports Authority will bother to read Hansard. If it does, it will take a delight in ignoring the wishes of the majority of users. However, I hope that the consultation process provided for Aldergrove airport will be much more effective. I hope that the Minister and his Department will ensure that the users' wishes and views are not ignored as they are currently being ignored at Heathrow.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) apologised for his late arrival. I had the problem of being delayed for a few hours this morning. Others of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues may be late and some of my colleagues will be late. A telephone message from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) was passed to me a few minutes ago. He was engaged this morning in consultations about the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 and left shortly after lunch to get here.
All those hon. Members have been delayed because of what I can only describe as imaginary snow at Heathrow. My flight was delayed for nearly two hours and we were told that the delay would last until the Heathrow runways were cleared of heavy snow. Hon. Members can imagine our surprise as we descended from west of the airfield and we saw that all the roads, even little country roads, were absolutely clear, as was the M25.
What sector of that cumbersome, incompetent authority decided, with no justification, to cancel flights, to divert flights and to delay flights, thus throwing the whole pattern of the day into utter confusion? I imagine from the signals being transmitted in various parts of the Chamber that a little confusion has also affected various Whips Offices.
We can only hope that the equivalent authority created by the order will be more realistic, more competent and

more considerate of users than is the present Heathrow body. We can hope—I hope not in vain—that Aldergrove's reputation for efficiency and user friendliness will not be damaged by the legislation which we are being asked to endorse, but which we shall not willingly endorse.

Mr. Tim Smith: We have had a useful and constructive debate—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he needs the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Smith: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to the debate.
We have had a constructive and useful debate. I have listened with great care to all the contributions. I understand that some hon. Members oppose privatisation in principle. There have also been a large number of detailed questions which I shall do my best to address. If, when I examine the Hansardreport in more detail, I find that I have not addressed any specific questions, I shall write to the hon. Member concerned.
I share the reservations that have been expressed about this procedure. I share the reservations about the fact that we have to consider a privatisation measure by means of the Order in Council procedure. I share the concerns about the consequences that flow from that and about the fact that it is not possible for hon. Members to table amendments, which makes it difficult for us to discuss matters of detail. However, I am afraid that it is not practical in every case for the Government to introduce Bills to cover such provisions. I am sorry about the fact that it is just not a practical proposition.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) talked about airport development in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, with its population of 1·5 million, is remarkably well served. We could have a rather interesting debate about whether Belfast city airport and Belfast international airport are complementary or in competition. I suspect that there is an element of each in the service they afford to customers. The provision for a population of 1·5 million is rather satisfactory and offers customers considerable choice.
The hon. Member for Wigan was concerned about the European regional development fund money. I had not seen the letter from Bruce Milian, although I have now read it with care. On the face of it, it appears to conflict with the advice that we have received from the Commission. I believe that the explanation is as follows. The ERDF grant was paid at the rate of 50 per cent., which is the rate that is paid to private sector operators. It will be open to the airport to claim grant at that rate when it is privatised. In practice, although there may be a potential threat, I do not believe that there is any real threat of the money being clawed back by the Commission. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
The hon. Member for Wigan talked about the market value of the airport. That value is what someone is prepared to pay for it in an open market. We have had 10 serious expressions of interest, so there is no shortage of interest. What we cannot do is to meet all the different concerns that have been expressed. Price will obviously be very important. I was pressed earlier by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who said that we


should get the best value for money for the taxpayers and that, if we did not, we would be in trouble with the Public Accounts Committee.
Other hon. Members pressed me on other considerations, such as the need to ensure that there is a local interest and consideration of a management-employee buy-out. We shall have to weigh up all the different factors and make the best decision. I should like a bid to succeed which has some local interest. We have encouraged a management-employment buy-out to the extent of providing it with some help. That bidder will be considered along with all the others.
We have heard a lot in the debate about policing. At present, policing levels at the airport are determined by management. They will continue to be determined by management when it is privatised, but under the supervision of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There cannot be any question of management suddenly deciding to make a 50 per cent. cut in policing at the airport. That would not be acceptable to the RUC, which will continue to have a supervisory role.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. MacKinlay) suggested that there may be a conflict—that perhaps an instruction given to a police constable may be based not on the best policing but on the convenience of management. Frankly, if that sort of thing happened, the RUC would take a considerable interest in it. If it continued, the Secretary of State would have to step in. As I said, he has considerable powers to step in and, indeed, take over policing of the airport if necessary. The existence of that sanction, and the knowledge that it exists, will deter any private sector operator from behaving in that arbitrary way in the first place.

Mr. Mackinlay: The scenario described by the Minister does not protect the individual police officer. At the moment, if he is given an unlawful or improper instruction he is put in a most invidious position. As I said, police officers do not have protection that is comparable to that of other workers—a federation or a trade union. The Minister is not providing the capacity for an individual police officer to behave with the utmost propriety, as is his wish, if an employer wishes to give an improper instruction.

Mr. Smith: I understand that, but it is the situation which prevails at present. It would be equally possible for the present management to behave in that way, but they do not do so because they know that it is not acceptable—it would not be acceptable to the RUC. I do not believe that a policeman is likely to be put in that position, for the reasons that I have given.
The hon. Member for Wigan asked about other workers at the airport. The answer is that the TUPE provisions will apply and their pension rights will be preserved. They will be transferred when the company is privatised.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) asked about pension arrangements, so perhaps I can deal with that matter now. There is a small deficit in the pension fund at present which is being made up by increased contributions from the employer. The pension scheme will be transferred to the new company and the pension rights of existing employees will be preserved in the process.
The hon. Member for Wigan asked who has the ultimate responsibility for security at the airport. The answer is that the airport operator has responsibility at present, and will

do so when the airport is privatised. The hon. Gentleman also asked who will pay for security. The answer is that the airport operator pays for security at present, and will be required to do so in the future. There cannot be any question of the airport operator cutting back on security costs simply for commercial reasons in an attempt to increase profit. That will not be acceptable. The operator will have to provide the level of security that is agreed with the RUC.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South was good enough to thank my Department's officials and, indeed, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), for the detailed discussions that have taken place and I am grateful for what he said. He wanted to know whether we would simply sell the airport to the highest bidder. As I said, price will obviously play an important part, but there are other considerations, and one of the most important is the question of a local element. A management-employee buy-out will be considered carefully, together with all the other bids.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some specific provisions in the order, including article 18(3)(i), which refers to an airport official or a constable requiring a person to leave the airport. That is a repetition of what we already have in law both in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, so there is nothing special or peculiar about that. It applies to all airports—there is nothing special about it in this case.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to article 20(2)(c) and the words "which affects their interests". One should not read too much into that. Obviously, we want to establish good consultative arrangements with everyone who has an interest in the operation of the airport, whether it is the users or the district councils representing those who are affected by its operations. We want to find the best way forward, and it will be for the airport operator to establish satisfactory relations. Obviously, it will be in the operator's interest to have good relations with all these interests. That is not particularly limiting because, obviously, people will be put on bodies because they represent specific interests in the community.
I have dealt with the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman about the pension scheme. Perhaps I can move on to his points about policing and the control exercised by the Northern Ireland Office. He talked about a conflict. As I said, a conflict could arise at present. However, I do not believe that it will arise, for the reasons that I have given. The hon. Gentleman asked whether security will be maintained at the highest level. It will be maintained at the level necessary to ensure that the airport is properly protected, just as it is at present. In that sense, I do not believe that there will be any change in the arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Secretary of State would have power to direct the owners to meet security standards. Effectively, I believe that that will be so. Indirectly, the Secretary of State will have that power. The hon. Gentleman asked whether he might have access to the security committee. The answer is yes. I cannot give a lot of details about the security committee, but, certainly, the hon. Gentleman will have access to it. I do not know what the committee will be called. The question about the name did not apply to the committee—it applied to the name of the police force. I am not able to say whether there will be a new title for the police force; it will be a matter for the operator.
I was asked whether there will be a formal agreement with the union representing the airport police. The answer


is that there will be a contractual arrangement which will be put in the prospectus, so it will be a clear condition that any bidder must accept as part of making a bid.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am sorry to labour this point, but the police officers do not have a trade union or federation. Their representative organisation is the association, but it has no statutory base. The police have asked the Government to give the association a statutory base, but they have failed to do so. It is grossly unfair, inept and dangerous to the police and, ultimately, the Government and the airport operator.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry if I called it a union—it is the association. It will be protected in the way that I have described: there will be a contractual arrangement which will be set out in the prospectus, and any prospective bidder will have to accept it. That is how members of the association and their interests will be protected.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South asked about Belfast city airport. I understand that. Although it is not what we are discussing today, it is relevant. The hon. Gentleman was right to point to the success of that airport and the fact that it has forecast 1·2 million passengers this year—a substantial rate of growth.
Obviously, that airport has produced some problems. If there are problems with noise levels, we will need to look at that issue. Certainly, there are problems with road traffic and the hon. Gentleman described some of them to the House. The problems of access to the airport and so on are already the subject of discussions at an official level. We must consider precisely what we will do about that, because there have been problems with the traffic recently. Those who are responsible for roads are examining the problem to see what we can do about it.

Mr. Stott: On the subject of Belfast city airport, I am not pressing the Minister to disclose at the Dispatch Box whether the owner of the city airport, Bombardier, could be a potential bidder for the international airport. However, will the Minister state whether the bid would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if that were to be the case?

Mr. Smith: I can help the hon. Gentleman on that point. At one time, Bombardier considered making a bid, but it is not doing so. I think that it understood that it would have the kind of difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Before the Minister leaves the issue of the security committee, can he tell the House who the chairman of that committee will be?

Mr. Smith: I am unable to do so at the moment. I do not think that it would be appropriate to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is he a Tory?"] One must be cautious with security issues. I will see whether I can provide more information on the matter for the hon. Gentleman later.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was also concerned about the Order in Council procedure, which I have tried to deal with. He does not like privatisation either, and he said that Northern Ireland had not benefited from it. It is a little too early to judge the success or failure of Northern Ireland Electricity.
British Telecom was privatised in 1984 and subscribers in Northern Ireland have benefited from that privatisation, as have subscribers in the rest of the United Kingdom, even if there is no competition. Telephone bills have come down by 20 per cent. in real terms and further cuts were announced the other day. A result of those cuts is that the peak morning rate has been abolished.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) does not like good news, but this is good news for the consumer and it has come directly as a result of the Government's privatisation policy and increased competition.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Are the Government saying that electricity bills in Northern Ireland will go down by 20 per cent?

Mr. Smith: I am certainly not saying that—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we continue, I should point out that this matter is not really germane to the debate. Passing reference to the subject may be made, but it should not make up the substantial part of the debate.

Mr. Smith: I am simply saying that it is too early to judge, as far as Northern Ireland Electricity is concerned. I will leave it at that.
The hon. Member for South Down also referred to the fact that the airport is first class, and that it had had major refurbishment. I agree with that, and it will be even better when it is privatised. Those involved will be even more concerned to provide good service to the customer, without which one cannot maximise profits. The airport will have access to private capital markets to increase investment, and there will be more management freedom. As a result, everybody who uses the airport will benefit from privatisation.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the method of sale and I understand that he would have liked a flotation. It was a difficult judgment to make, and we were concerned with the size of the proceeds of the sale. That will be examined carefully by the Public Accounts Committee. I could point to a number of trade sales—for example, Sealink and Royal Ordnance—which have raised considerably more than the Belfast airport is likely to raise. it is impossible to say exactly what the threshold is. A different judgment has to be made in each case. This case was carefully considered, and the judgment was reached that a trade sale was the most appropriate means in the particular case.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about consultants, and I can assure him that a competitive tender was engaged in for each appointment, as is always the case in such matters.

Mr. McGrady: May I refer to a matter to which I thought the Minister would return concerning security? He is aware that the police at Belfast international airport do not now service the building area, and that that has been taken over by a security firm. What responsibilities previously exercised by the police are now exercised by the security firm? Is the level of security the same where the police are no longer involved? Are the police or the security firm responsible to the present employers in exactly the same way?

Mr. Smith: The police are responsible for the security of the entire airport; that situation has not changed. It will not change following privatisation, even if a private firm is


operating in a part of the airport area. I will certainly provide the hon. Gentleman with more details on that matter if necessary.
The hon. Member for Thurrock talked a great deal about policing at airports in Great Britain, but I think that he misunderstood what I said. I did not suggest that arrangements would be the same in Belfast international airport as they are in Great Britain. I have gone to great lengths to try to explain why that is not the case. We have satisfactory arrangements, and all we are doing is transferring them during the privatisation. I am riot in favour of change for change's sake. We have good arrangements, and they will be continued.
The hon. Gentleman was, on the whole, rather inclined to exaggerate the consequences of the matter. I understand his concern about the pay and conditions of people who work at the airport, and in particular the police. Those are presently matters for the management, as they will continue to be after privatisation.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned that the association does not have trade union status. It does have negotiating status, and surely that is important. That negotiating status will come by virtue of a contractual arrangement, and its rights are enhanced by the order. If the hon. Gentleman looks at clause 19(5), he will see that that is the case.
The hon. Gentleman asked about future owners, and what would happen if the purchaser were to sell the airport to another owner. We have full protection. In the prospectus, we will have effectively a golden share, so we have control. It is vital for security reasons that we have that control.
The right hon.Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to the "missing link". I am glad that we have, as a result of his efforts, the missing link to the airport. He also talked about the consultation process and the importance in particular of consulting the users of the airport. I agree with him, and I sympathise with his experience at Heathrow. I hope that we will be able to do better at Belfast international.
It is in the interests of any airport operator that it should properly consult the users. They are, after all, the customers of the airport. Those customers have a choice of which airport to use on some routes, and we will want to ensure that users are properly represented on any consultative committee and that their views are properly considered.
I hope that I have answered all the points raised in the debate. The Government strongly support the concept of privatisation. In this case, it will bring great benefits to the customers of the airport. The airport will have access to the private capital markets, and it will have the freedom to manage. That will be in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, and of all those who use the airport.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 224.

Division No. 121]
[5.57 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashby, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)





Bates, Michael
Garnier, Edward


Batiste, Spencer
Gill, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Gillan, Cheryl


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorst, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Booth, Hartley
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hague, William


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hannam, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hawksley, Warren


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Heald, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Hendry, Charles


Butler, Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Carttiss, Michael
Horam, John


Cash, William
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jenkin, Bernard


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Key, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dover, Den
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Duncan, Alan
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dunn, Bob
Legg, Barry


Durant, Sir Anthony
Leigh, Edward


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maclean, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Madel, Sir David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mans, Keith


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marland, Paul


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mates, Michael


Gallie, Phil
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Merchant, Piers






Mills, Iain
Spring, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sproat, Iain


Moss, Malcolm
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Needham, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stephen, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stem, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steve
Sweeney, Walter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sykes, John


Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thomason, Roy


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Richards, Rod
Trend, Michael


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robathan, Andrew
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walden, George


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sackville, Tom
Waterson, Nigel


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Watts, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whittingdale, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Michael
Willetts, David


Sims, Roger
Wilshire, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Speed, Sir Keith



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Michael Brown.


Spink, Dr Robert





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ainger, Nick
Cann, Jamie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Corston, Ms Jean


Bell, Stuart
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cox, Tom


Benton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cummings, John


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Blair, Tony
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Dafis, Cynog


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davidson, Ian



Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Byers, Stephen
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Caborn, Richard
Dewar, Donald


Callaghan, Jim
Dobson, Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dowd, Jim





Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McLeish, Henry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maclennan, Robert


Eastham, Ken
McMaster, Gordon


Enright, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Etherington, Bill
McWilliam, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maginnis, Ken


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Faulds, Andrew
Mandelson, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Flynn, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Maxton, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Meacher, Michael


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fraser, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Milburn, Alan


Galbraith, Sam
Miller, Andrew


Galloway, George
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Garrett, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


George, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Gerrard, Neil
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Godsiff, Roger
Mudie, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mullin, Chris


Gordon, Mildred
Murphy, Paul


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Grocott, Bruce
O'Hara, Edward


Gunnell, John
Olner, William


Hain, Peter
O'Neill, Martin


Hall, Mike
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hanson, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pickthall, Colin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pope, Greg


Henderson, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hendron, Dr Joe
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Heppell, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prescott, John


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Purchase, Ken


Home Robertson, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hood, Jimmy
Radice, Giles


Hoon, Geoffrey
Raynsford, Nick


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Reid, Dr John


Hoyle, Doug
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hutton, John
Rogers, Allan


Illsley, Eric
Rooker, Jeff


Ingram, Adam
Rooney, Terry



Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Rowlands, Ted


Jamieson, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Shearman, Barry


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C& S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)


Khabra, Piara S.
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Snape, Peter


Leighton, Ron
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Spellar, John


Lewis, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Litherland, Robert
Stott, Roger


Livingstone, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Turner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Vaz, Keith


McCartney, Ian
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Macdonald, Calum
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McFall, John
Wareing, Robert N


McGrady, Eddie
Watson, Mike


McKelvey, William
Wicks, Malcolm






Wigley, Dafydd
Wright, Dr Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Don Dixon.


Wray, Jimmy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret to say that I missed the last Division and the reason for that is simple. My office is on the farthest point of Millbank and, as I came straight out of my office after the Division bell went, the lifts were not working properly. I had to walk all the way down the stairs. I came straight here, to find that the doors were locked. Can I ask you to inquire into whether it is practical for Members who have to come from Millbank to do so within eight minutes?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Member and anyone else caught in that way. I will ensure that that point is passed on to the proper authorities.

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also noticed that tonight two Members rushed through the counted Lobby when the doors were being closed on our side. As I was the Whip responsible for the counting on the Opposition side, the doors were closed, and therefore Members on the Opposition side were denied the opportunity to vote and made no attempt to walk through the counting area. I hope that the hon. Members who had gone through the counted area in the Aye Lobby were not included in the vote, because it denied the right to Members coming in late to the Opposition Lobby.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes. It is obviously not in my personal knowledge because I cannot see what is happening. If, however, doors are open and people walk through them, obviously they will have been included in the vote. I cannot make further comments without greater knowledge than I now have. I thank the hon. Member for mentioning the point.

Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
My noble Friend Baroness Denton, who has responsibility for health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, introduced the order in another place on 31 January and it is my pleasure to introduce it to the House this evening.
The purpose of the draft order is to enable health and social services trusts in Northern Ireland to carry out certain statutory functions which, at the moment, are the legal responsibility of the health and social services boards. The order is a local solution to a local problem. Hon. Members who were present at the Northern Ireland Committee debate on 20 January may recall that some of the issues involved were mentioned on that occasion.
It may be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the background to the order and the present organisation of the services in the province. Both those points are important if one is to have an understanding of the need for the legislation.
In Northern Ireland, health and personal social services were integrated into one structure in 1973. We have therefore had an integrated service for more than 20 years. During that period, the services have been provided by four health and social services boards. That integrated system has served Northern Ireland well through 20 turbulent years and the people of the Province are—quite justifiably—proud of that unique service. The draft order seeks to preserve that integration and to enable services to continue more or less in their present form. It is needed only to remedy a weakness in the existing law and not because the present services are deficient in any way.
The Government's reforms for health and social services provided for the separation of the purchase and provision of services. The Health and Personal Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 redefined the role of the four boards as being responsible, primarily, for assessing the needs of their populations and commissioning services to meet those needs. The order provided for units to be established as health and social services trusts—fully independent of board management, but wholly in the statutory sector.
However, although the 1991 order enabled trusts to be established and allowed boards to contract with them for services, it did not permit trusts to carry out certain functions associated with those services, except for mental health functions, for which specific provision was made. Those functions flow from a range of existing legislation, such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1968 and the Adoption Order 1987. Some are sensitive powers, involving the restriction of civil liberties—the taking of a child into care, for example. That legislative weakness prevents some units, such as those providing personal social services, from becoming fully operational as trusts. The order is concerned with putting that right.
In bringing forward the order, we have aimed to provide a legal framework for the discharge of functions by trusts which ensures clarity about where responsibility lies and


secures full accountability for the work undertaken by trusts. Within that framework, the order enables boards, with the approval of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, to delegate certain statutory functions, which will be specified by the Department, to health and social services trusts. The functions involved were set out in the explanatory document published last summer, along with the proposal for legislation. A copy of the draft regulations dealing with them were placed in the Library when the order was laid on 9 December.
The order allows trusts to carry out those functions and makes provision for schemes to be agreed between trusts and boards on the way in which the functions are to be carried out.
Since the proposal for legislation was published last June, many people have voiced concern about its effect on services, particularly in relation to the protection of children. Some have expressed doubts about the accountability of trusts within the new arrangements. Questions about fragmentation and inequality of provision have also been raised.
My noble Friend Baroness Denton and her predecessor Lord Arran considered very carefully the concerns raised and devoted much time and effort to explaining the issues to people. It is fair to say that many of the concerns stemmed from a misunderstanding about the role of trusts and about the new role of the boards to which I have already referred. Perhaps I can clarify these points for the House.
Health and social services trusts are state bodies established firmly within the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. They are fully accountable for all that they do and they are closely monitored by the Department and by the boards. They are not independent companies and are bound by the same guidance as governs the operation of boards at present.
For their part, the boards—freed from any involvement in the day-to-day management of the services—can concentrate on improving the health and social well-being of their populations through the contracts they agree with trusts and setting the agenda for them in terms of quality of service, standards of care and equity of provision.
The Government accept that people have anxieties and concerns. They are genuinely held, but they have not been ignored. Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, we have one thing in common: concern for the welfare of children and other vulnerable groups in our society.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister discuss the financial implications of the proposal? The matter has been raised in the Lords and it has also been raised by many people in Northern Ireland. According to the figures that we have been given about the 12 trusts, the chairmen of the trusts will receive £15,000 a year and each of the five board members will receive £5,000 a year. We have been told that that amounts to between £1 million and £2 million which will be required to finance the procedure. Would not that money be better used to keep the present structure, which has provided such a good service to the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Smith: I agree that the present structure has provided an excellent service to the people of Northern Ireland. However, there is always room for improvement.

The right way to achieve that is by making a clear distinction between purchaser and provider. Of course, the members of those boards and the chairmen will be remunerated, but the costs will not be substantial when one considers the huge scope for securing improvements in value for money and better service delivery to patients. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) must be placed in the context of total health spending in the Province.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Surely the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North should be pursued on the basis that the 12 new quangos are in addition to the existing personnel who will be retained in the various boards dealing with personal and social services? There must be an enormous increase in the establishment costs appertaining to this exercise.

Mr. Smith: I was not seeking to suggest that there was not an increase in costs. I accepted the figures given by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. However, I said that I thought that that cost was fully justified in securing better value for money and better quality of service for patients and other users of the social services. I strongly believe that to be true, just as it is true in the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to the Government's national health service reforms.
Before the interventions, I said that the thing that we have in common is our concern for the welfare of children and other vulnerable groups in our society. For that reason, the trusts and boards concerned have been working very hard to establish procedures that will ensure that those who are entrusted with the discharge of statutory responsibilities at local level will be clear about their role and fully accountable for all that they do.
Baroness Denton has, for her part, met representatives from the British Association of Social Workers to hear at first hand their concerns. She has visited units which are preparing for trust status and she has talked to people who are directly involved in providing services and who are preparing the ground. From the conversations that my noble Friend has had with managers and professionals alike, and on the evidence that she has seen, there can be no doubt that the schemes being developed between boards and trusts will address clearly and comprehensively the key issues that have been raised. Under the terms of the draft order, they will have to be approved by the Department of Health and Social Services.
I shall refer briefly to two other important issues which, although not technically part of the legislation, are intended to underpin it. Trusts which will be providing personal social services will need to have access to expert advice and guidance in providing those services and carrying out the functions that I have mentioned. To ensure that they have that, we are making it a legal requirement for any trust providing those services to appoint a qualified social worker as an executive director. At the same time, we will make it mandatory for each health and social services board to appoint a director of social services if they have not done so already. Guidance on the roles and responsibilities of both posts will be issued.
Those changes taken together represent a significant strengthening of the structures involved in the delivery of personal social services in Northern Ireland. Chief


executives of trusts have gone to great pains to build in safeguards for existing social work structures, both organisationally and professionally within trusts.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister has just informed us about the appointment of a full-time, qualified social worker and a director of social services. How much will that add to the present bill?

Mr. Smith: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a figure, but I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that we are to appoint professionals as executive directors. That directly meets the concern that the management should incorporate at least one person with direct knowledge and a qualification as a social worker.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What consultation has the Minister initiated, and what observations has he received, in respect of the trade unions which represent the employees in the area of social work about which we are concerned?

Mr. Smith: I mentioned that my noble Friend Baroness Denton had met representatives of the British Association of Social Workers—

Mr. Mackinlay: That is not a trade union.

Mr. Smith: Well, my noble Friend met association representatives. I will let the hon. Gentleman know later whether she met trade union representatives. However, since her appointment, my noble Friend has gone out of her way to meet those who are principally concerned about the implications and consequences of the order.
The order contains three other changes to Northern Ireland health and social services legislation. First, it amends existing law on the audit of health and social services bodies. The law in that area is no more than adequate at present and the order is designed to modernise and strengthen it. Secondly, the order amends the law on the registration of pharmaceutical chemists by requiring people seeking registration to satisfy prescribed conditions as to character, health and other matters. That will bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with that in other countries. Finally, the order repeals an existing provision in relation to the employment of nurses which is no longer needed because of changes in the way in which nurses are recruited and trained.
The proposals are about ensuring that our services in the area are structured and organised in a way that maximises their capacity to respond to the needs of people quickly and effectively while at the same time safeguarding the interests of the public and those vulnerable people in our society who need the protection of the state. I commend the order of the House.

Mr. William O'Brien: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State referred to the Northern Ireland Committee's debate of 20 January. I should like to refer to some of the points that were made by the Minister of State on that occasion. We have been told that the people of Northern Ireland are proud of the existing system. If that is the case, why do the Government want to change it? If the people of Northern Ireland are satisfied with their system, what is the need for this order? I put it to the Under-Secretary and to the House that the intention of the

legislation is not to improve health and social services but to fulfil the political dogma of the Conservative party, which is intent on dismantling the national health service.
The Under-Secretary of State referred to a debate that had been held in another place. Hon. Members will know that on that occasion an amendment calling on the Government to withdraw the legislation was defeated only very narrowly. It cannot be right to plough on relentlessly against such opposition from the upper House and against the opposition that will be expressed tonight by Labour and Northern Ireland Members. This order is premature. It should not be before the House, and we shall oppose its substance and the principles that underlie it. I hope that Ministers, rather than driving hon. Members into the Lobbies, will wake up to common sense and withdraw the order.
This legislation, which delegates statutory responsibilities to further private quangos, should not have been introduced in advance of legislation affecting the care of children. The first piece of legislation mentioned in schedule 2 is the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. It is totally unfair and unreasonable that this order should be introduced before the House has had a chance to debate the forthcoming amendment to the legislation on children. We want to know how Parliament will be able to influence the scrutiny of child care in Nothern Ireland. That information will not be forthcoming in advance of the amending legislation to which I have just referred. The order that we are debating now ought to be withdrawn if the Government believe that people should have a say in matters of serious significance to Northern Ireland.
These trusts, to whose creation the Minister of State referred during the meeting of the Northern Ireland Committee on 20 January, will do nothing to improve health care in Northern Ireland. The Minister said:
The creation of social services trusts is of particular significance. The management freedoms which come with trust status are designed to devolve decision-making to those responsible for delivering services, offering them the opportunity to be imaginative and responsive to local needs.—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 20 January 1994; c. 4.]
On 19 April 1993—less than 12 months ago—I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
what Department will make the necessary assessments under the community care reforms for people applying for residential arid nursing home care in Northern Ireland?
The reply was as follows:
Health and social services boards, through their units of management, are responsible for carrying out an assessment of need for any individual who lives within their area who requires community care services, including residential care and nursing home accommodation."—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 18]
Are we to take it from what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has said tonight that that answer will no longer apply and that assessments will now be made by those administering the trusts? In other words, will what we were told 10 months ago be changed by this order? Is this what the Government call forward planning and forward thinking?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a right that public representatives enjoy under the current law—the right to question a course of action—is to be removed? Does he agree that the distancing of public representatives from the boards that is taking place already will be increased, thus reducing opportunities to question and to call to account?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The democracy that is necessary in the administration of Northern Ireland's health and personal social services is being further diminished. Local communities will have their input into the question of quality of service reduced further.
The foreword to a document published last year by the Eastern health and social services board says:
The future role of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board is to purchase services to meet the health and social care needs of its resident population within the boundaries of Government policy. Chief among these must be the needs of the population illustrated, as far as possible, by objective information, the views of the people themselves, the views of general practitioners and others. Professional advice, particularly from those in the caring professions, must also continue to influence the decisions of the Board in the purchase of health and social services care.
In other words, we are witnessing a reduction in the management of the services. Through this order, the people of Northern Ireland are being offered less time spent on patient care and—much worse—pressure on a service that is already under pressure. The Eastern health and social services board has declared its future role as being the provision of services in line with Government policy. This order will reduce the role of the health and social services boards and will result in lessened health and community care services for the people of Northern Ireland.
There will be no difference in the lines of responsibility. The health and social services boards are currently responsible to the Minister and the Department. The new trusts, too, will be responsible to the Minister and the Department. Indeed, the Minister of State told the Northern Ireland Committee:
The vast majority of functions to which the hon. Gentleman referred are already carried out by the board staff at local level. The only difference is that the staff carrying them out in future will, in many cases, work for trusts instead of boards, but they will essentially be the same people carrying out the same jobs."—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 20 January 1994; c. 32.]
If the same people will be performing the same jobs and be responsible to the same Minister and boards, why is the order needed? It will only add to the expense of managing Northern Ireland's health and personal social services.
The trusts will be fully accountable to the Department for the discharge of delegated functions, but what will happen with training? At present, the requirement for personal social services training through a working partnership with employers and education institutions provides positive training at all levels. Since 1990, qualifying and post-qualifying social work training throughout the United Kingdom has been delivered through partnerships between employers and teaching institutions. In Northern Ireland, such partnerships currently operate at area health and social services board level, not unit trust level. The Minister should address that point in considering the provision of qualified people. Will trusts be responsible in future?
The people of Northern Ireland do not want the changes that the order will bring. Will the Minister confirm that 95 per cent. of those asked for their opinion of the order opposed it? The order will extend the Tory obsession with privatising and commercialising health and social services care. The Government are using the language of the market place to sell ill health and rationalise the sick. That philosophy underpins the order.

Mr. William Ross: If 95 per cent. of people canvassed were against the order, it would be revealing to know who accounted for the 5 per cent. in favour.

Mr. O'Brien: I assume that they were Government supporters, as is usually the case. Ninety-five people out of every 100 canvassed totally opposed the order. I hope that the Minister will take note of the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Government seem intent on creating more managerial posts and bureaucracy, rather than more hospital beds. Nothing better illustrates that than the creation of 12 management units providing personal social services. The order will bring Northern Ireland in line with some of the sweeping changes already made in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tim Smith: I have been reading the Labour party document "Health 2000". Does not Labour now accept the purchaser-provider split?

Mr. O'Brien: The proposals contained in that document are significantly different from those in the order. We argue for more local input into the future provision of social services. The order will deny local input in health and personal social services care in Northern Ireland. If the Minister accepts our proposals, he should withdraw the order.
The Minister would be the first to agree that there is a vast difference between the regions. In other parts of Britain, social care for the elderly and mentally ill and children involves considerable local input through local authorities. If the Minister has read "Health 2000", he will know that we intend to continue with that approach. In England, locally elected representatives have a say in care provision which directly affects the quality of life of the elderly, children and the mentally ill.
Funding is equally important. It is abundantly clear that in the English regions local authorities are underfunded in the provision of community care. Although it may be the Minister's intention to allow individuals who want to do so to live independently or semi-independently, his promises will be empty if back-up resources are not available to provide the services that the elderly and mentally ill require. Caring for such people in the familiar surroundings of their own homes costs money. If the Government intend to offer wider choice and genuine opportunities to the weaker members of Northern Ireland society, they must be prepared to underpin their stated intentions with adequate resources.
In extending choice, will the new community care trusts in Northern Ireland be instructed, as English local authorities are at present, that a fixed proportion of their funding for the care of the elderly must be directed at providing private care? If so, will the Minister explain how the top-up payments required of close relatives will be obtained? Can the Minister give an assurance that families caring for an elderly parent or other relative who enters a private nursing home will not be turned out of their homes so that the houses can be sold to provide the top-up money required for private nursing care for those whose mental or physical disposition requires it? That is an important matter which the Minister should address. Many people are concerned about the demand for top-up payments for families who live in private sector homes.
In extending the new choice, to which the Minister referred, will he give some indication of how the elderly will be looked after with regard to the financial provisionsin private nursing homes? Will he also give some indication that those who work in the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, many of whom have a sound record of developing new and important welfare initiatives, will be allowed to continue providing those initiatives? Will they be encouraged to develop those initiatives and innovations in community care into the next century? Will voluntary workers be given the same incentive to do their work under the trusts as they have under the health boards? I make that point specifically because the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 has no equivalent in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, I return to the issue of accountability. The Minister, Baroness Denton, recently stated in another place:
Accountability is to boards, to the Department and then to me.
In other words, accountability is restricted by Government influences. Baroness Denton also said:
There is a line to the social work person on the board of the trust; a dotted professional line,
and added:
If something should go wrong, the trust … will be fully accountable and responsible."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1152]
Some red lights are flashing and the Minister should explain what Baroness Denton meant.
We should again consider what the Minister said in the Northern Ireland Committee. He said:
The trusts will be fully accountable to the boards and, ultimately, to the Department for the discharge of delegated functions,"—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 20 January 1994; c. 32.]
There is some conflict between the views expressed in Committee and in another place. Therefore, the Minister should clear up some of the misunderstandings that have developed because of the debates on this order. I am afraid that those vague attempts at reassurance do nothing to make the position concerning accountability and ultimate responsibility any clearer.
Will the Minister tell the House who will finally be responsible for the taking of children into care? Who carries the professional responsibilities? Will it lie with the health and social services board or the trust board? Will it ultimately lie with the director of the board or the executive director of the relevant trust? Is the Minister ultimately accountable for the taking of children into care? As I pointed out, we ought to have debated the children's order before the order before us was presented to the House. Since we are seeking to amend the children's order, the Minister should answer those significant questions.
I remind the Minister that the patients and citizens charters, which were launched in a blaze of publicity and have all but fizzled out, emphasised the rights of people to personal services and related needs. How will the citizens charters apply in Northern Ireland? Will the Government make it compulsory for the new trust boards to employ approved social workers to care for the mentally sick and for people with disabilities? Will it be mandatory for the trust boards to employ qualified people in accordance with current legislation or will it be another sacrifice of the standards of so-called safety and efficiency? Will deregulation involving the provision of health and community care apply in Northern Ireland, reducing the quality of service?
There is a genuine and, in our view, justified concern in Northern Ireland about the future provision of personal social services and health care. Since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, one in five hospitals have closed and since 1981, one in three beds in hospitals have been lost. Those figures speak for themselves, but even worse is the £500,000—I am being a little generous to the Minister compared with the figure given by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) earlier—which will be required in order to pay the additional appointed chairman and non-executive members of the trust. That clearly shows that it is not the provision of beds and hospitals or of social workers that is the priority of the Government, but ensuring that bureaucracy in Northern Ireland is built higher and higher.
Salaried Government placemen, instead of treatment for the sick of Northern Ireland seem to be the order of the Minister's presentation. The order does nothing to redress that situation and the national health service has never faced a greater threat than it does today. I urge the House to reject the order, but I also appeal to the Minister to withdraw it before we enter the Lobbies in the light of the points I have made in my short address.

Sir James Kilfedder: I listened to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) with great care. He spoke with sympathy and great knowledge of the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. I shall not repeat what he said because I could not do so with the same eloquence.
I intend to vote against the order for a number of reasons, but, because of the lack of time, I cannot list them all. However, all the reasons are valid and they are all important to the people that I represent. The order will be opposed by every representative of Northern Ireland. In view of such unanimity across the political divide in the Province, and in view of the considerable time that the Government spend urging the Northern Ireland politicians to co-operate, they should reward such united opposition to the order by putting it to one side. I join the hon. Member for Normanton in appealing to the Minister to withdraw the order as a gesture of good will to the Ulster people and to the united front presented by Ulster politicians.
According to press reports, the Secretary of State is about to launch—or, perhaps, has launched—another political initiative that entails the creation of a Northern Ireland assembly with power. The ideal time and the proper place for the discussion of the order before us is in such an assembly. In fact, the assembly, when established, will have to examine the health and social services provision in Northern Ireland and may wish to alter radically the present system.
I shall also vote against the draft order because it epitomises the lack of full democracy in the Province. Unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, we are denied the fundamental right to table amendments and to have a proper debate on Second Reading, in Committee, at Report and on Third Reading. Our debate is limited to 90 minutes, which means that I shall have to cut my speech short to allow other hon. Members from Northern Ireland to take part.
In addition, I shall vote against the order not only because I want it to be rejected, but as a protest—the only


form of protest that is available to me, as a believer in parliamentary democracy—against the undermining of health and social services provision in my constituency.
I have often made speeches in the House condemning Eastern health board's imposition of major cuts on Ulster hospital in Dundonald, Ards hospital and Bangor hospital. Bangor hospital serves at least 75,000 people, and the population is increasing each year as a result of new housing developments. Bangor should have a fully functioning hospital with acute facilities, a gynaecology ward and a casualty department. Having applied pressure, I was promised that services would be improved, but that promise has not yet been fulfilled. In the name of the people of Bangor and surrounding areas, I again demand the restoration of a fully equipped community hospital.
The order will lead to the creation of 12 trust boards for social services. There is no need for those boards, for reasons already catalogued by the hon. Member for Normanton. They will be costly manifestations of the bureaucracy that now dominates Northern Ireland. The Minister has admitted that the chairman and non-executive members will receive what I consider to be substantial salaries for the number of hours that will be put in—money that is desperately needed for the elderly, the young, the mentally handicapped and others who require community care.
Who allocates these lucrative posts to chairmen of trusts? Over the past year or two, we have seen examples in Northern Ireland—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Such as Albert Reynolds.

Sir James Kilfedder: A more immediate example is the appointment of the chairmen of the tourist board and the electricity company. Those and other appointments were made before privatisation by the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is patronage.

Sir James Kilfedder: It is patronage on a large scale.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, under the legislation that brought in the iniquitous Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Dublin Government have the right to put forward names for all those posts. It is clear to anyone who examines those names that the current political representation in the House of Commons is not replicated on quangos. The official Unionists are not represented; nor are the popular Unionists, members of my own party or, indeed, members of the SDLP. Those who stand for the Conservative party or the Alliance party and are defeated, however, get on to all the boards.

Sir James Kilfedder: My hon. Friend has stated the position very frankly.
Each chairman is to receive between £15,000 and £20,000 a year. The Public Accounts Committee has expressed anxiety about the manner in which they have been appointed, and about their management of the trusts' affairs.
The Minister said that the present health and social services system had the backing of the people of Northern Ireland, but adduced no evidence to support his claim. I challenge that claim: who supports the order? Which political party in Northern Ireland supports it; which

organisation in Northern Ireland supports it; which indivdual supports it? Perhaps the Minister will also tell us whether the Conservative party in Northern Ireland supports it. There is widespread discontent about the present system. The new trusts, and the appointment of chairmen and non-executive members, have added to that grave concern. The system will largely remove the element of accountability to elected representatives of the people.
The people of Bangor have demonstrated conclusively that they want to retain both the Banks residental home for the elderly and Enler house, in Dundonald. Under the new system of trusts, however, the people of Bangor—people who believe in democracy—can be treated with contempt. Where is the democracy that this Parliament epitomises? I ask the Minister to take the order away from the House, and keep it away.

Mr. William Ross: Two or three speakers have already said pretty much the same; no doubt we shall hear much more of the same before the debate is over.
The order breaks new ground in that, for the first time, trusts are taking responsibility for social services work. We are deeply concerned about that, and feel that it deserves much closer examination than it will receive in an hour and a half. In the other place, Lady Denton said that this was a local solution to a local problem; today, the Minister used the same words. That attracted my attention to the report of the debate in the other place, and I noted that the Minister read out whole slabs of what had been said there. He might at least have made some effort to update his material, in the light of experience.
Neither Lady Denton nor our Minister told us how the "local problem" to which they referred had been created. That might have been enlightening. Both said that the present system had served Northern Ireland very well for 20 years. In that case, why is change now needed? Has the present system been found to be deficient in some respect? Neither Minister suggested that it had, so we must assume that changes in health and social services provision created the "local problem" and that the Government had to make changes as a result.
The people of Northern Ireland have not asked for those changes. They are well aware that democratic input into every aspect of administration in the province has been diminishing steadily for many years. The order will move democratic control from one arm's length to two or three arm's lengths—a serious development that does not sit well with the Government's declared commitment to democracy. This is part of a process that has been going on for far too long, and should have been reversed long ago.
The mere fact that the Government are putting more and more buffers between the people and the delivery of service in itself creates a climate of suspicion, and makes people chary of accepting the Government's view that this scheme will secure public confidence. That is pie in the sky: in reality, the Government are not very widely trusted in Northern Ireland, where people feel that they are being used as guinea pigs in preparation for what will happen elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The House will recall that when the Government introduced the community charge—to give it its proper title rather than its more popular description—the rest of the United Kingdom was used as a guinea pig. They did not


get around to introducing the community charge in Northern Ireland as it disappeared before it got that far—thank God that we had the wit to object to it on various grounds. We were right to object and we have been right about many things relating to Northern Ireland. We now say that this is not the right time for the order—in fact, it may never be the right time.
We want answers to a number of questions. What is to be the legal status of the trusts? It is not spelled out as clearly as it should be. If the Government are to embark on this confidence-building exercise, such issues should be spelt out. Are the trusts to be agents of the Government or of the boards? For whom are they acting? How is the perforance of their duties to be monitored?
In one respect, the Minister went some way to clearing up an issue that was troubling me. He said that social workers would be introduced at trust level. Surely they will be doing a job that is already being done by someone else, so who will lose their jobs? If no one is to lose his job, why do we need the new folk? The Government should have done a great deal of thinking before the order got this far, but it seems that that was not the case.
The order will affect very vulnerable groups. One has only to read schedule 2 to see who will be affected. Schedule 2 states that the order will repeal various provisions of, among others the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979, the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. These Acts and orders deal with some of the most vulnerable groups in society.
I do not think that this is the way to proceed. Baroness Denton made it perfectly clear in another place that the functions that will be transferred to the trusts flowed from the legislation that I have cited. When people on the ground realise what is happening, their distrust of the Government's intentions will be greatly increased.
Article 92B deals with the improvement of the economy, services and so on. It states:
The Department may appoint auditors to undertake comparative or other studies to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness
in the provision of services. The first issue to be studied is the question of how effective, efficient and economical the present services are so that we shall at least have something with which to compare the new body when it is, unfortunately, established.
It is clear that the Government are intent on introducing the order and will whip their cannon fodder through the Lobbies this evening. Their cannon fodder comprises hon. Members who have not heard the debate and who know nothing about it. If they did, successive Governments would probably have suffered more defeats. When dealing with vulnerable groups, economics is surely not our prime concern—or is it? If we think only of economics, those who have been disadvantaged for whatever reason will suffer grievously. Such folk should not be treated as mere chattels. We are not talking about the efficiency of the provision of goods or groceries; we are considering the services that are to be provided for vulnerable people.
Social services provision in Northern Ireland has been integrated and has worked well for 20 years but is now being deliberately fragmented. I see no good reason for

that. If the order is passed, as I fear it will be, we need a truly independent and highly critical element—a bit of sand—to be introduced into the works. We need to ask the nasty questions which far too many people are willing to brush under the carpet.
The Government have set up shadow trusts and have proceeded as if the opinion of the House did not matter, because they know that they can win the necessary majority. They have also appointed the shadow staff. I wonder whether they are already being paid—I assume that they are. We are aware of the cost of the salaries alone, but that is not the only expenditure that will arise. A new bureaucracy is being created which must duplicate the existing system. If it does not, people in post will have to get the sack, no doubt with very large redundancy payments which are not mentioned in the order.
Article 6 deals with chemists. Why is the article included? Is this merely a convenient vehicle? What is the purpose of article 6? Why are these changes being made? The Minister should say a word about them.
My final comments relate to the need for proper ministerial accountability to the House or to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. The legislation highlights yet again the need for proper legislative processes in the House. Despite his chattering, the Minister knows perfectly well that if the order had to be dealt with in Committee, and if it were amendable, and if the Government had to answer probing questions and provide for Northern Ireland the information that they are required to give on legislation for other parts of the United Kingdom, the Government would have more explaining to do than could possibly be extracted from them in a one-and-a-half-hour debate.
Today's proceedings also highlight the need for a Select Committee on Northern Ireland—

Mr. Raymond S.Robertson: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding.
The Government will no doubt have the support of the Labour party. If members of the Social Democratic and labour party catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will also complain that they are unable to ask probing questions to find out what is happening. I advise the Labour party and the SDLP not to throw away this opportunity but to join those of us who oppose the order. Of course, a Bill would have been most welcome, but that is an idea to be pursued at some other time.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There are some issues to which we are all anxious to hear the Minister's reply. Those of us who have read the record of the proceedings in another place discovered that pertinent questions were asked and reference was made to a debate in the Northern Ireland Committee. It was reported that there was a consensus among the political parties about the issues that were causing grave concern to the people of Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister tell the House who responded when the draft order was published and what was their response? If 95 per cent. of the responses were against the order, should not that have been a warning bell to cease pressing ahead with it, or is the consultation process a charade and a farce?
The Minister has recently been appointed and we wish him well in his task. He may not believe this now, but when he has been in his job for longer and when he has listened to the people of Northern Ireland, he will find that many of them, including members of his party, have grave concerns about meaningless consultation. People may marshal their facts and lobby a Minister, who will listen but not heed anything they say because the decision has already been made. When Government Departments continue to behave in that manner, it causes grave resentment and bitterness in the hearts of people.
Why have a consultation period and ask people to make representations if, when 95 per cent. of people say no to a proposal, the Government say yes? The Minister's party preaches to us that it would be wonderful if we could only get the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to show unity. What is the Government response when Northern Ireland Members, whose opinions are diverse on many matters and between whom an unbridgeable and wide gulf exists on others, come together and agree on a proposal? They use their majority in the House to thumb their nose at the unanimous opinion of Ulster representatives and proceed with business. That is not the way to develop good relations in Northern Ireland and to give people confidence in the democratic process.
Accountability concerns all hon. Members and it has been mentioned in every speech tonight. The Minister's noble Friend spoke on the proposal in another place and I trust that he wii interpret what she meant, because I do not know what she meant. She said:
Accountability is to boards, to the department and then to me. That position does not change. There is another line in the structure.
What did she mean by that? Does the line of accountability run from the boards to the Department and then to her? If so, why did she mention another line in the structure? Why did she not say that the line of accountability ran from the trusts, the boards, the Department and then to her? She left out trusts, but she described another line:
There is a line to the social work person on the board of the trust; a dotted professional line, which is of benefit in this case."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1152.]
What has that to do with accountability? Will the trust be accountable in the same way as the boards, the Department and the Minister? We want that question answered tonight.
Hon. Members are aware that the taking of children into care is a serious matter. We have received phone calls from distracted parents saying that they have had domestic trouble and that their children have been "lifted", and that no one will now talk to them. Will we be able to discuss such matters with anyone? Has the line of accountability moved so far that there will be no way of bridging the gulf?

Dr. Joe Hendron: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems crazy and foolish for the House to be discussing this order today when on Thursday we shall discuss the proposal for a Children (Northern Ireland) Order? Many activities of the proposed trusts will be to do with the care of children. As we have not sorted out the proposals on the care of children, why should the order be passed tonight?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It would have been better to put the horse before the cart. The best way of achieving that would be to withdraw the order,

allow us to debate the other order and then return to this matter. I do not know what the Government were up to when they decided to debate the order today. Perhaps they decided that, as the House would be dealing with orders all day, they could throw in another for discussion by Northern Ireland Members, who would be present to discuss the order on the airport.
They may have done it for convenience, but it is not convenient to those hon. Members who work in difficult circumstances that are unknown to Ministers and who are the only elected representatives in contact with the Government. We have councils in Northern Ireland, but they have relatively little power. We are the elected representatives and we have to carry out all the duties that councillors on this side of the water carry out. We have to do everything and the Minister should help the public's representatives to stand up for their constituents and to bring their constituents' complaints to them as part of the process of accountability.
The Minister's noble Friend said that a trust was a "statutory body". Would the Government define that? Do the inverted commas around those words mean they are not really statutory bodies or that they have a higher breeding? Perhaps the Minister will explain the standing of these organisations.
Seven of the units will work in areas that have no acute hospital services and only five will work in areas that have acute hospital services. We do not know for how long those five areas will have acute hospital services. We have heard a cry from Bangor loud and clear tonight. I could raise a cry from the North Antrim hills and from the Lame area, which has been brought to the House's attention by the area's representative and myself on numerous occasions. We can all cry about what has happened to our hospital services. Will the Minister tell us what accountability we can expect?
The Minister in the other place continued:
The draft order seeks to preserve this integration and to enable services to continue more or less in their present form."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1125.]
I do not understand that, because this is indeed a real change that demands the appointment of a chairman, executive members, a director and a social service worker. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said, there will inevitably be redundancies. Where will they begin and where will they end? We cannot establish the new structure without redundancies. The integrated system that we have at present is perfectly good and I do not see why we have to inject into it a new arrangement altogether.
Those are some of the questions to which the order gives rise. I have been able to refer to very few of the issues because our time is limited and I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) in saying that matters as serious as this, which have a bearing on the family and the civil liberty of the subject, should be discussed in a debate on a proper Bill, which can be amended. We cannot amend this order; we can only vote against it. That is not the way in which business should be conducted.
The Minister would do well to heed my advice tonight. He would then be lauded by the people who thought it worth while to make representations to him about their objections to the order, and by the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives in this House, all of whom are saying, "Take this order back. Let us have a debate on


the important order that is to be considered by the Northern Ireland Committee and come back to this order when we have dealt with that." That, more than anything else that the Government could do at the moment, would inspire hope and confidence in democratic principles. This is a personal matter—it has to do with persons, children, families and welfare. Let the Minister be a man tonight. Let him stand up and say, "Yes, I will consider the order further and withdraw it in the meantime."

Dr. Joe Hendron: As someone who has spent the past 30 years in primary health care in the constituency of Belfast, West, let me first pay tribute to those involved in community care not only in that territory but throughout Northern Ireland. The past 20 years have been very difficult for all of them—especially for social workers who have to implement much of the legislation. I pay tribute to social workers, community and psychiatric nurses, medical practitioners and ordinary community workers on the ground who are not necessarily professionals.
The order has been introduced becasue the legislation introduced in 1991 was inadequate. We know about the trusts that we already have and about the trouble in relation to various hospitals, although that is not relevant tonight.
Like other hon. Members, I have studied the speech of the Minister responsible for health in the other place. On 31 January, Baroness Denton said:
Since the proposal for legislation was published last June many people have voiced anxieties about its effect on services, particularly in relation to those for children.
Children are the most important subject that we are discussing tonight.
Baroness Denton continued:
Some have expressed doubts about the accountability of trusts within the new arrangements. Questions about fragmentation and inequality of provision have been raised. My noble friend and predecessor and, more recently, I have considered very carefully the anxieties raised and have devoted much time and effort to listening and then explaining the issues.
I have devoted a fair amount of time to reading Baroness Denton's speech to establish exactly what she proposes.
The Minister's speech continued:
I think it is fair to say that many of the anxieties expressed stemmed from a misunderstanding of the role of trusts, and perhaps t can clarify that point.
Health and social services trusts are state bodies, established firmly within the health and personal social services in Northern
Ireland … They are not independent companies and are bound by the same guidance and directions that govern the operation of health and social services boards at present. Like my noble predecessor, I recognise that people have anxieties".
That is true: all the people of Northern Ireland and all the professionals have great anxieties about the proposals.
I appreciate their concerns. They are genuinely held, but they have not been ignored. Regardless of which side of the debate we are on, we have one interest in common—the welfare of children and other vulnerable groups in our society. For that reason, the shadow trusts and boards concerned have been working very hard"—
here are the key words—
to establish procedures which will ensure that those who are entrusted with the discharge of statutory responsibilities at local level will be clear about their role and fully accountable for all that they do."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 1994; Vol. 551, c, 1125–26.]
Baroness Denton used the words "establish procedures", but I am certainly not aware of any procedures that have been established. Earlier today I attended a meeting of the Eastern health and social services board to

discuss the order. The hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martyn Smyth) and the representative of the Alliance party were also there, as were representatives of the social work and legal professions and of Queen's university.
As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said earlier, the cart is being put before the horse. Some of the most important legislative proposals are contained in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order, which we are to discuss on Thursday. Not all the aspects of that proposal have been worked out. We shall have to address a great many questions to do with children in need and in care, sexual or physical abuse, and children who are in some way involved with paramilitary people. All those matters will have to be dealt with under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order, yet the trusts dealt with in the order before the House tonight will have to implement those provisions.
Baroness Denton and Baroness Faithfull both referred to accountability. Where is the accountability? We all know that, if a child tragically dies, everyone asks, "Where is the social worker? When did he or she last call?" Who should those on the ground speak to and seek guidance from? Is it the trusts? I am well aware that there will be a qualified social worker on the trusts. We must also consider the accountability of the trusts to the four boards and of the four boards to the management executive or the Department and eventually the Minister.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We are told that procedures have been put in place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great concern that, although a social worker is to serve on the directorate, there is no clear line management right down to grass roots level?

Dr. Hendron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that remark. There is no line management. I am not criticising the excellent professionals involved in shadow trusts because they themselves have not been given guidance. The boards do not seem to know where they are. As regards the Children (Northern Ireland) Order, anyone who has time to attend the Committee on Thursday—which I understand will sit for at least four hours—may glean some understanding of how complicated the problem is.
Another aspect relevant to the debate tonight and even more relevant to that on Thursday is the role of the police. Northern Ireland has many problems, similar to those in Britain but exacerbated by violence and by the fact that we have so many one-parent families. Children go before the courts, and the police are often involved. If we are to develop a comprehensive strategy for children and young poeple, we must involve the police. How on earth will we bring together the police force right across the north of Ireland, the 12 new trusts and four boards?
What we really need is a comprehensive system for dealing with child care. I sincerely believe—I have studied the order carefully—that it is a grave mistake on the part of Government to move it this evening. I do not want to repeat what other hon. Members have said, but I pay tribute to the British Association of Social Workers, Health Care in Northern Ireland, Barnardo's and various other bodies which have briefed us for some time. I ask the Minister to withdraw the order.

Mr. Tim Smith: Much of the debate has focused on trusts. To some extent, we have had a rerun of the debate that took place in 1991 on the original order. There is a misunderstanding about the scope of the order. It is not unimportant, but it is relatively narrow. There was a misunderstanding by quite a number of those who responded during consultation who were inclined to criticise the concept of the trusts.
The concept of trusts in Northern Ireland was accepted when the House approved the 1991 order. That order provides for a clear distinction between the purchaser and provider and for the delegation of services from boards to trusts. What it does not do is provide for delegation of all functions of boards to trusts—only for some of them. I explained that mental health functions were transferred, but many other functions were not. I think that that was because at the time we were largely focusing on hospital trusts and not on the possibility of integrated trusts—combined health and personal social services trusts.
Frankly, it will simply not be possible for the trusts to operate most efficiently if those functions are not transferred to them. I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding about that point. There has not been a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. The matter is relatively straightforward if the principle on which the 1991 order is based is accepted.

Dr. Hendron: The Minister could resolve many of our problems if he explained in simple language. If there is non-delivery of a service within the ambit of the order, who is responsible? Will it be the trust, the board, the Department or the Minister, all four, or any of them?

Mr. Smith: I can deal with that because a number of hon. Members raised the question of accountability. It is important. The position is no different in England and Wales, where we have trusts. The trusts are responsible for the delivery of the service and they are accountable, but there is a clear line of accountability from the trusts—[HON. MEMBERS: "To whom?"' The chief executive. I would normally expect, if I had a complaint about the operation of a health service trust in my constituency, to write initially to the chief executive. If I was not satisfied with the reply, I would take it to a higher level. The higher level goes from the trust to the board, to the Department and, finally, to the Minister in charge of the health service. That seems to be straightforward.

Rev. Martin Smyth: This is an important point. As I understand it, health trusts are to provide the service and the health authorities purchase the service. In Northern Ireland, the community trusts will be responsible not only for providing services but for purchasing the service. There is a dichotomy. It is bureaucratic logic going astray to extend it to community trusts.

Mr. Smith: The whole point of the order is to achieve a total split between purchaser and provider. That is why we are proposing in it to transfer certain functions from boards to trusts. We shall achieve a total transfer only if we accept the order, otherwise we shall be left with something of a halfway house which will not enable the trusts that are due to come into operation on 1 April to operate satisfactorily. I am sorry that it has been so difficult to explain all this, but I suspect that it is based on the fact that some people have a misconception about what trusts are

really about. They are statutory public bodies. There is no question of them having any other constitutional status. They will be fully accountable for their actions and will be fully accountable to the boards, the Department and the Minister. It is vital that we should make the change in the order. I commend it to the House.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [11 February].

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 266.

Division 122]
[7.44 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Aitken, Jonathan
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Day, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arbuthnot, James

Dickens, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Den


Atkins, Robert
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dykes, Hugh


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Elletson, Harold


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bates, Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David



Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishburn, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Andrew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bowis, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gallie, Phil


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gardiner, Sir George


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burns, Simon
Gamier, Edward


Burt, Alistair
Gill, Christopher


Butler, Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, John


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Churchill, Mr
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clappison, James
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hague, William


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Congdon, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Conway, Derek
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Harris, David


Cormack, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan


Couchman, James
Hawkins, Nick


Cran, James
Hawksley, Warren






Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim



Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod



Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speed, Sir Keith


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lightbown, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sumberg, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sweeney, Walter


MacKay, Andrew
Sykes, John


Maclean, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thumham, Peter


Mates, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moss, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waterson, Nigel


Norris, Steve
Watts, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wells, Bowen





Whitney, Ray
Wolfson, Mark


Whittingdale, John
Wood, Timothy


Widdecombe, Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.


Wilshire, David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Adams, Mrs Irene
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainger, Nick
Eastham, Ken


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Enright, Derek


Allen, Graham
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Armstrong, Hilary
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark



Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foulkes, George


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fraser, John


Benton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Galbraith, Sam


Berry, Dr. Roger
Galloway, George


Betts, Clive
Gapes, Mike


Blair, Tony
Garrett, John


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Gerrard, Neil


Bradley, Keith
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burden, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Byers, Stephen
Graham, Thomas


Caborn, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hain, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hall, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Hanson, David


Cann, Jamie
Hardy, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Henderson, Doug


Clapham, Michael
Hendron, Dr Joe


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Helen (Shet'ld, H)


Dafis, Cynog
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tarn
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Tessa


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Donald
Keen, Alan


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Khabra, Piara S.



Dowd, Jim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kilfoyle, Peter






Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Pope, Greg


Kirkwood, Archy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Leighton, Ron
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lewis, Terry
Prescott, John


Litherland, Robert
Primarolo, Dawn


Livingstone, Ken
Purchase, Ken


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Llwyd, Elfyn
Radice, Giles


Loyden, Eddie
Randall, Stuart


Lynne, Ms Liz
Raynsford, Nick


McAllion, John
Redmond, Martin


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


McCartney, Ian
Rendel, David


McCrea, Rev William
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Macdonald, Calum
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McFall, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McGrady, Eddie
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McKelvey, William
Rogers, Allan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Rooney, Terry


McMaster, Gordon
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



McNamara, Kevin
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McWilliam, John
Rowlands, Ted


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Shearman, Barry


Maginnis, Ken
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mahon, Alice
Short, Clare


Mandelson, Peter
Simpson, Alan


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springbum)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Milburn, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Trimble, David


Morley, Elliot
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mudie, George
Wareing, Robert N


Mullin, Chris
Watson, Mike


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Andrew


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Hara, Edward
Wilson, Brian


Olner, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wray, Jimmy


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wright, Dr Tony


Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Patchett, Terry



Pendry, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Pickthall, Colin
Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Dennis Turner.


Pike, Peter L.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.

Return of Cultural Objects

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I beg to move,
That the draft Return of Cultural Objects Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
The statutory instrument is important. The regulations, a statutory instrument under the European Communities Act 1972, will implement the provisions of Council directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the terrority of a member state. This is an internal market measure providing an additional layer of protection for member states' national treasures.
Article 36 of the treaty of Rome allows member states to define and protect these national treasures, provided that the measures taken are not disproportionate to trade. It was feared by a number of states, particularly France and the southern states of the Community, that the removal of routine customs checks at the internal frontiers, following completion of the single market on 1 January 1993, would weaken national protection.
Important national treasures could be removed by their owners across internal borders without the permission of the member states from which they originated. One powerful motive for doing that would, it is maintained, be the drawing power of the international art market in London. It is fair to say that export controls on these countries are on the draconian side, with permission to export being the exception rather than the norm. As a result, the price that an owner can realise for his art object is largely a domestic market price as is it unlikely that a new owner would be able to export it lawfully.
It could well be argued—I have some sympathy with this view—that it should not be the business of the United Kingdom Government to police the export control systems of other member states. But we are a Community—a club where we should extend the hand of mutual co-operation and help. The United Kingdom argued that an informal agreement would achieve that, but the majority of states thought that the only effective way forward was a statutory system. They saw the problem as both an internal one, as I have described, and an external one at the external frontiers of the Community.
Member states decided that a consistent approach to both was essential. The result was a Council regulation, EEC 3911/92, which set up a system of Community export licensing based on categories and monetary thresholds set out in an annex. It is closely modelled on the United Kingdom's national system. Provision for national co-operation in identifying and returning national treasures was made in Council directive 93/7/EEC, again limiting the objects that could be subject to those provisions by the same annex.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the Minister clarify the question of monetary thresholds? Some of us think that the most urgent problem is the theft of religious and ecclesiastical art from Czechoslovakia and, even more, icons from Russia and elsewhere. The Minister knows that they can be sold for proverbial peanuts in eastern Europe. Where does the doctrine of monetary thresholds fit into this extremely difficult and thorny problem?

Mr. Sproat: As so often, the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. However, it is not a point which arises on the regulations that we are debating. I agree that countries in eastern Europe, especially Russia with its valuable icons, should find a way to prevent sales if the objects are unlawfully exported. But the matter does not arise in this debate. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write or talk to me about it, I should be glad to discuss it with him.

Mr. Dalyell: Following the all-party heritage group's visit to Czechoslovakia, some of us wrote to the Minister's Department—before his time—at considerable length and raised the matter with the Prime Minister, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) knows.

Mr. Sproat: I will certainly make a point of getting out the correspondence and seeing what can be done in a context other than the regulations that we are debating.
The House will recall that when the directive was debated in Standing Committee B in November 1992, hon. Members were critical of some of its provisions. The package of regulation and directives was due to be debated at the Internal Market Council the following week, and the Committee asked the Secretary of State to ensure that no common position was arrived at without several changes.
The United Kingdom was President of the Council at the time and that is always a delicate position in which to use a blocking vote. But in this case, our position was also influential. The United Kingdom's negotiators achieved all the improvements we sought. We shifted the burden of proof so that the courts of each member state could apply their own system and, most important, we removed the requirement for licences for thousands of minor archaeological and numismatic objects.
In the Government's view, we had arrived at the best compromise possible. The directive stirred up the nationalistic instincts of member states. The southern states wanted it to cover a much larger area of cultural goods. Some wanted no time limit at all for the period during which a member state could request the return of a cultural object removed unlawfully from a museum or religious institution. Greece passionately sought this, since to have it otherwise was contrary to its constitution. In the end, Greece voted against the directive, and Germany abstained.
Given the text that we had before us, the United Kingdom considered that to continue to block it would reopen issues that were not tolerable to the United Kingdom. But I will freely admit that the directive is far from perfect.

Dr. Robert Spink: Before my hon. Friend moves away from Greece, can he tell us whether there is anything in the regulations that would result in the Elgin marbles being returned to Greece? While he is talking about that part of the world, can he say whether anything can be done to prevent any further stripping of the valuable and historic items in the part of northern Cyprus that is now occupied by Turkey?

Mr. Sproat: I do not know about northern Cyprus. However, I can tell my hon. Friend, who asks an extremely important question, that nothing in the regulations would compel us to return the Elgin marbles. For the absolute avoidance of any doubt, we are not compelled by the directive to do so and we have no intention of doing so.
One important commitment won by the United Kingdom was to a review in 1995–96 of the operation of both the EC regulation and the directive. We are already assembling a number of issues and notifying the Commission and other member states of them. The art trade has been co-operative in applying for EC licences, and has drawn the disadvantages to our attention. The licensing unit in my Department has taken on two additional staff to deal efficiently with the extra licences. Applicants are kept waiting no longer than before for their applications to be deal with. But there is an extra cost, which must be balanced against our obligations to lend mutual assistance to other member states.
Whether the regulations will involve extra costs will rest entirely on the extent to which they are used. They will provide a mechanism for another member state to request the return from the United Kingdom of a cultural object that has been unlawfully removed from that state in breach of its rules for the protection of national treasures. They will also apply where a national treasure has not been returned following a period of unlawful temporary removal. But I must stress that this applies only to cultural objects unlawfully removed on or after 1 January last year. That point will give comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who asked an important question about the Elgin marbles.

Mr. Robert Banks: My hon. Friend will be aware that the regulations are retrospective; they go back to 1 January 1993. My feeling is that we should not pass retrospective legislation. It is much better for legislation to go from the time that it is passed by the House. Can my hon. Friend tell us whether any requests have been received for the return of any cultural objects that have been removed within the period covered by the regulations?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend asks a good question. I do not know the answer off the top of my head. Perhaps I can let him know later in the debate. As for retrospection generally, my hon. Friend is right—it is usually an objectionable principle. But in this case we had to deal with other member states of the EC which wished to go all the way back unprescriptively—that is, as far back as the object—

Mr.Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Sproat: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
We had some difficulty in stopping that. For instance, the constitution of Greece says that any object manufactured before 1832 belongs to the Greek Government. We had problems getting a date fixed, and we felt that 1 January 1993 was not a bad compromise to reach.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this country is a potential beneficiary? We have suffered greatly in the past few years from thefts from churches. Is not it true that objects stolen from an English country church in, say, June of last year would come under the regulations if they turned up in one of the other countries in the Community?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The great value of the London art market means that we tend to proceed in our arguments from the assumption that we are talking about cultural objects from other countries


being sold here. As my hon. Friend rightly said, many valuable cultural objects from this country are found on the market in other parts of the EC. We could request that those countries co-operate with us to return British cultural objects. My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point.
Although the directive allows an optional provision for member states to apply the directive to objects that were unlawfully removed before January 1993, we do not intend to apply that provision. The answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point needs not to be qualified, but borne in mind. Although we will not apply that provision, other countries may do so, and we may continue to get pressure for the return of the Elgin marbles and other objects. We have not accepted that, and we do not intend to apply the directive in that manner. We believe that it would introduce unacceptable uncertainty for purchasers of cultural objects and for members of the art trade.
Hon. Members will have noticed that the regulations have adopted the same meaning for expressions as those used in the directive, and that there has been no attempt at interpretation. That was deliberate, because it is important to ensure that the directive is correctly implemented while avoiding the imposition of burdens other than those required. The best way to achieve that was to follow the wording of the directive.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Minister explain how the definition of illegality is to be applied? Is it simply necessary for the member state applying to this country or to another for the return of a cultural object to assert that, in its view and by its law, the object has been exported illegally? Is there some objective test of illegality?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Each EC member state has its own definition of a national treasure. In Italy, that covers a wide range of objects, and Germany—I think I am right in saying—has specified 600 objects of national treasures. The hon. Gentleman would quickly see that if the manuscript of Beethoven's 10th symphony were discovered. It would not be included on the list, and therefore would not require an export licence.
The definition applies if an object that surfaces in London is defined as a national treasure by the home state, if I may put it that way, under article 36 of the treaty of Rome. For example, if an Italian national treasure surfaces in a catalogue at Sotheby's the Italian Government have to say within two months of the object appearing in the catalogue that they thought it had been unlawfully taken from Italy. The Italian Government must say that it is a national treasure which has been taken without an export licence. After that two months, they have no longer than 12 months to take the matter to court.

Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister saying that if objects categorised by a member state as a national treasure are exported, they have been per se illegally exported? Does that apply also to other artefacts or cultural objects which may be illegally exported—for example, objects which have been taken from an archaeological dig, illegally vandalised and taken into this country? A member state, say Greece, may say to our Government that those objects

have been illegally exported. Do we accept Greece's word on that, or is there some objective test of what is an illegal export? Can any country—ourselves included—nominate an export as illegal?

Mr. Sproat: The export cannot be nominated as illegal after it has been taken, say from Greece to the United Kingdom. However, the object may be on the list of national treasures as defined by the Greek Government. The list is published and we all know what is on it.
If the object has been stolen, that is quite different. There are objects that can be transported from Greece to the United Kingdom legally if the Greek Government issues an export licence. The original regulation applied to objects that required an export licence. If an object is taken out of Greece and surfaces in the United Kingdom or in any part of the EC without an export licence having been issued, that is contrary to the directive and the regulations that we are debating. Theft is, of course, different and can be prosecuted through the courts in the normal way. Presumably, the object would not have been exported with an export licence because a thief would not wish to draw it to the attention of the authorities.
Hon. Members will see that regulation 3(1) provides for the Secretary of State to seek a cultural object where there has been a request from another member state. That goes into part of what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central just asked. That means that we would expect to check an object with the full co-operation of the person on whose property the object is believed to be located.
Members of the art trade already co-operate in similar circumstances with the police, and I hope that that mutual co-operation will continue. In the few cases where it is considered necessary and appropriate for the Secretary of State to apply to the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or to the Court of Session in Scotland, for an order authorising entry and search, the official responsible for undertaking the search would normally expect to enter the premises at a reasonable hour of the day, unless it is anticipated that to do so would defeat the object of the exercise.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not doubt the impeccable taste of either the Secretary of State or the Minister. The hon. Gentleman says that the Secretary of State will check who carries that out, but presumably it will be transferred to someone in the British museum or a Scottish gallery. Will it be the appointee or the Secretary of State who carries out the check?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman asks a complicated question to which I will attempt to give a lucid answer. "Seeking to check" is the wording which forms part of the European directive which I said we have used. It would apply if, for example, the Greek Government told us that a certain cultural object designated as a national treasure by them was thought to have been exported to London, and was likely to appear in the British markets.
The Secretary of State, through the officials of the cultural property unit in the Department, would place advertisements in the various appropriate antiques journals. Those would be circulated among the various houses in London where it was expected the object might be sold. The auction houses would be informed that they should look out for the object, which the Greek Government had reason to believe was to be unlawfully sold in London. "Seeking to check" would apply in cases


where an object had appeared and we had no advance notice from the member state's Government that it was likely to appear. If the object appeared in a Sotheby's catalogue, we would be in touch with an appropriate expert at the British museum and ask him to go and check.
In some, perhaps many, cases, court proceedings might not be needed if the bona fide owner can agree appropriate compensation with the requesting member state, but in other cases, court proceedings might be needed to establish the good faith of the owner. The requesting state will have to satisfy the court that the object that is the subject of the proceedings for return is, in fact, the one that is sought and that it was unlawfully removed from the territory of the requesting state during the relevant limitation period. The court must also be satisfied that the proceedings were brought less than 12 months after the requesting state became aware of the location of the object and the identity of its possessor or holder. That is the point that I made to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).

Mr. Bernie Grant: Is that the only way in which artefacts could be returned to their country of origin after the regulations are agreed? Could they be returned by normal negotiations and so on? For example, do the Elgin marbles have to fit into the categories that the hon. Gentleman stated?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. It is perfectly possible that an object will be returned by mutual agreement. Let us say that the hon. Gentleman bought an antique statue, believing, perfectly properly, that it had been exported from Greece with an export licence, and that he believed himself to be the bona fide owner. Let us say also that the Greek Government prove to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction that, unknown to him, it had been unlawfully exported from Greece.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman, as the bona fide owner—there is not the slightest besmirching of his name—would say, "Of course it should not have been taken; I gladly give it back," in which case the requesting Government would pay him compensation. It might be what he paid for the object, or a similarly negotiated price.That is how it would work. I imagine that, very often, it will work that way, because people will be bona fide owners of objects that turn out to be unlawfully exported.
I want to emphasise the modest nature of the provisions. We should not view the powers of entry and search and of seizure as striking at the innocent owner's right to enjoy his property. Perhaps the powers, which will require an order from the High Court, will never be used. We have carefully not created a new criminal offence. Contempt of the High Court or of the Court of Session is a serious matter, with stiff penalties. The regulations should be sufficient should a member of the public obstruct the competent authority in the exercise of searching for a requested national treasure of another member state. But it is innovative legislation in the sense that, for the first time, we are prepared to act on a statutory basis to provide a mechanism for the return of the national treasures of other member states.
We shall watch carefully how use is made of the measure. It is a developing aspect of international property law, and the United Kingdom Government and the art trade wish to influence it positively. We have vital economic as well as cultural concerns in the United Kingdom. They come together in the strong, open and legitimate art market

in London which, in its own code of practice, wants nothing to do with goods that have an unlawful provenance.
The problem of unlawful circulation of national treasures is worth tackling, just as we are tackling trafficking in stolen art and objects. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The Opposition welcome the regulations. Any piece of legislation which polices and regulates the growing market in illegal works of art and antiquities is to be applauded and supported. That illegal market is said to be second only to the illegal trafficking of drugs. Quite how that figure is arrived at, I am not sure, but nobody has refuted it. Indeed, it has been quoted several times recently, not least by Lord Renfrew. If the scale of illegal trafficking is as large as that, it is a very large part of international crime and one which, at least in the European context, it is a good thing that we are tackling. The Opposition commend the Government on adopting the regulations.
In accepting, I hope, the support of the whole House for the regulations, the Government need to answer more questions than the Minister has addressed, especially as I detected, particularly in his opening remarks, some slight personal scepticism or reluctance when he referred to acting as policemen for the imperfections of other countries' policies. He referred to "a view with which I have some sympathy." If the Minister is a little sceptical about the regulations, we need to probe the Government's view of them and their commitment to implementing them.
How big is the problem for the United Kingdom and what research has the Department done to establish the scale of the problem for the United Kingdom? What percentage of the art market will be affected? The Minister said that the art market did not wish to traffic in goods which do not have good provenance, but he knows very well that many objects that are sold on the art market have doubtful provenance or no provenance at all and that, without those objects, the art market would be severely damaged. It would be very interesting to know what the scale of the problem is and what percentage of the market will be affected.
Also, in other matters, the Government rightly stress that they should set themselves targets so that their performance can be evaluated. What number of successful search and finds and, therefore, prosecutions will the Government consider adequate? Will the Minister give some targets about the performance of the regulations? The Minister needs to tell us more about the steps and the mechanisms that the Government will take. Will his Department need to take on new staff and train them? If so, how many, and what expertise will they have and what training will he provide for them?
Presumably, the Minister will need help from the Inland Revenue and the police in implementing the regulations. What training will there be for police forces? If, say, Italy asks us to search for a work of art that it suspects is in Glasgow or Liverpool, it will be no good if the number of police officers in this country is so limited that we cannot meet the request from the member state and therefore cannot implement the regulations.
I was slightly worried by the Minister's response to how a check will be made. He seemed to say, "We will leave it


to advertising in the art press that an illegal object is loose or is suspected of being loose in the London market." Is he saying that his Department would not be responsible if there is a request from, say, Greece because it believes that there is such an object here? Will it be sufficient for the Government to ensure that an advertisement is placed in Apollo or elsewhere? Is it not his Department's responsibility to ensure that either the Inland Revenue or the police search out that object? An advertisement would not fulfil the spirit of the regulations.
In particular, the Minister must say something more about the definitions. We understand that the regulations apply only to national treasures and the inventories of public collections or ecclesiastical institutions. The example that I gave when he kindly gave way to me was the pillaging of archaeological sites. It is unlikely that a new archaeological site or a site that has not been excavated before will be on an inventory of national treasures. It will certainly not be part of a national public collection.
If something is ripped from an archaeological site—this is exactly what Lord Renfrew is rightly concerned about, and the implications for international archaeology and our understanding of our cultural heritage in Europe—and it is not designated a national treasure, will it be covered by the regulations? That could leave a huge hole in the regulations.
What protection to the regulations give us? Many works of art are undoubtedly extremely important to the culture and cultural heritage of this country. We do not have a designated list of national treasures, but we have public collections and ecclesiastical institutions. We have many important works of art which are absolutely central to the way we see our heritage, tradition and view of our culture but which are not in public institutions, public collections or ecclesiastical institutions. Will they not be covered?
For instance, if they are stolen from a private collection or a national trust and they turn up—or we believe that they have turned up—in Rome, will we be unable to apply to the Italian Government for the return of those objects even though we know that they have been stolen from a private collection in Britain and are important works of art or artefacts? If so, there is another huge loophole, which the Government should seek to close. I am sorry, if that is the loophole, that they have not closed it in advance.
Can the Minister give some more assurances to the House about the way in which the regulations will be effective in helping us to gain possession of objects in the way that I have described, and will he especially give some consideration to the effect that that will have on the London art market? He referred to that subject briefly in his concluding remarks, but will he tell us what co-operation the Government had had from the art market and from museums and academics in their negotiations?
I understand that a committee has been set up to advise the Government, but in the debate recently in the other place the noble Lord Gowrie said that it had met only three times and he seemed at that stage to be extremely critical of the way in which we were proceeding to the regulations. Have those fears been assuaged? What has changed? Are the Government happy with the regulations that they are putting before the House?
Those questions need to be asked because the House needs to be reassured, not only that the regulations in their present form will be on the statute book, but that the Government have a real commitment to making them work. Though the Minister's remarks were very interesting and helpful to the House, I think that they were a trifle cautious or lukewarm in their enthusiasm. That causes—in my mind at least—some worry about the Government's commitment. The Government's record in that sector over recent years fuels that doubt and fear about commitment.
The problem has been around for many years, although it has grown enormously recently, and it has caused worry to everyone in academic circles, in museums and in the art world generally. A great deal of work has been done on regulations of that type in a European and an international context. Internationally, those date back to the 1950s, with The Hague protocol on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict 1954 and the New Delhi recommendations on international principles applicable to archaeological excavations 1956—both of which were drawn up by UNESCO.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Is the Labour party still committed to the return of the Elgin marbles?

Mr. Fisher: The Labour party views that subject in the context that I am describing now—the Elgin marbles should be multinational agreement. That is is why the Labour party, unlike the Government, is committed to ratifying and being an active signatory to the UNESCO convention of 1970. If we were—Greece is a party to the UNESCO convention—we would be able to work out the orderly return, not only of the Elgin marbles, but of the Benin bronzes and many other cultural treasures. We should not handle it as a one-off bilateral agreement with Greece on an individual artefact or set of artefacts, but as part of an international agreement.
The problem is not only between ourselves and the Greek Government; it is a major international problem. The Government should say tonight why they will not ratify and be an active signatory to the UNESCO Convention 1970. They ought to do that. They should be serious about tackling the problem.
The Government ought also to be active in the European dimension because the regulation that we are debating is not sufficient. The Minister knows very well that work is going on at this minute on UNIDROIT, the convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects, which was basically concluded in 1992 and will be submitted to a diplomatic conference this year. Why do the Government not actively support UNIDROIT? The Attorney-General has said that he does not close the door on the Government signing UNIDROIT. What is the problem with UNIDROIT? It would greatly strengthen the regulations before us tonight. If the Government expect to be taken seriously in connection with the regulations, they should give a commitment to be active in their support for UNIDROIT at the conference next year.
The Government also need to explain why they are not supporting the Commonwealth convention which has recently been concluded. Every other Commonwealth country has been active in that. A decade of campaigning by New Zealand has brought the Commonwealth Mauritius protocol to completion. Eleven countries contributed to that working party; they have been drafting it for seven years and Australia has now offered to draft


legislation for other Commonwealth countries. Why are the Government dragging their feet on the Commonwealth initiative? Will they go further, as the Attorney-General said last year, and not just not close the door but open the door and be an active supporter?
The Minister must explain the Government's problems about the wider international context for the regulations that we are debating tonight—the UNESCO treaty, the Mauritius Commonwealth protocol and UNIDROIT. Taken together, those three agreements and the regulations would provide some context in which to tackle illegal trafficking in art artefacts, which no Member of the House can support.
The Government have taken the first step, and we welcome it, but there are three other steps waiting to be taken if the Government are serious about tackling that illegal traffic. The Minister must address himself to that.
What is the problem? Is it that the Minister fears that legislation will hurt London's art trade? If so, he should be open about that and discuss it. That was the burden of the debate on 3 November 1992 in the other place, when the noble Lords Gowrie and Carrington—the latter a former Member of this House, and both of them chairmen of major art auctioneers and art houses—mentioned severe fears and worries about the regulations and this action. Those Members of the House who, like me, are not experts on the subject, do not know whether the worries that those noble Lords expressed are well founded.
The Government have to answer that. Lord Gowrie said that it would threaten our position in the art trade; that it would be a smugglers' charter, and that we shall be acting as customs, civil servants, tax gatherers and policemen for other countries which will not police their own laws. He went on to say that the Government were under pressure to complete the legislation by January last year, that it was too quick, that there was too little consultation and that the consultative organisation met only three times. That was 15 months ago, so perhaps it met several times last year. We ought to hear about that. The noble Lord Carrington said that those things would be damaging and unworkable and would increase bureaucracy.
Those are charges by two people who have worked in that sector and who know about it. The Minister ought to respond. Are they right in having those fears? Have things been changed? Have the Government managed to secure negotiations and change the regulations in a way that would satisfy those fears? He said tonight that, basically, we were adopting the regulations as they were in the European directive. Is so, are the fears of the art trade still justified? Are the regulations likely to damage the art trade in this country? That is an important part of our cultural industries and a profitable area for this country.
We therefore have two different problems. It is good that the Government are doing something, even if it is rather cautious and tackles only part of the problem, but are they committed to it and have they got it right and achieved what, I accept, is a difficult balance between not damaging an important industry in the United Kingdom and doing right by the international market and protecting our national treasures? The Minister will say that, because he is being criticised from both sides, perhaps he has got it right, but when one is criticised from both sides one may equally have got it wrong from both points of view. There is no security in that argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) has suggested a way of squaring that circle. We should opt

for a wider international agenda which does not simply protect European artefacts and the relationships between member states. Lords Gowrie and Carrington were concerned that as the regulations are purely European the art market would go elsewhere to areas not covered by UNESCO or other international agreements.
To calm those fears, we should not run away from or be soft on the issue. Instead, we should sign up to UNESCO and pressure the United States Government to ensure that there is effective international regulation. The Government have done that reluctantly in the past in respect of issues such as copyright, patents and designs with the Berne convention. If the Government are serious about tackling international crime, they have an opportunity to take the lead in respect of international regulations.
The Government are in a dilemma. They want to talk tough on crime, but I do not believe that they are certain that what they are doing will be effective. I am not sure whether they know the effect their actions will have on the art trade. The Government must decide whose side they are on and how best to protect our art treasures and our art trade and also how to tackle international crime.
The Opposition support the regulations. We are pleased to do that and we congratulate the Government on them. However, the crucial point is what the Government do next. Will they police the regulations with real rigour and determination? Will they go further in respect of an international perspective? If they will not do either of those things, when we next debate the issue at Question Time or in Adjournment debates in a year's time, if the regulations have not been effective it will be clear that the Government have been prepared to go through the motions but not to back the legislation with action or to seek an international solution.
If that happens, the aim behind the regulations to get to grips with a culturally dangerous and unpleasant form of illegal international trafficking will not have been observed. We will not have done right by that problem. The Government must convince the House that they are really committed on this and that they intend to do something about it.

Mr. Toby Jessel: My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister about the Elgin marbles. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) put a similar question to his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
With regard to the Elgin marbles, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say to his opposite number in Greece, Mrs. Melina Mercouri, "Never on Sunday, nor on any other day of the week." I am happy to remind the House that those words were first spoken by our former colleague Sir David Price, and never have truer words been spoken. He was absolutely right.
Nations, like individuals, cannot always have what they want. I hope that we will never accept that we should be told what to do by UNESCO, the European Union or any other international organisation. I remind the House that the Elgin marbles are not owned by the British Government; they are owned by the British museum which is an independent charitable foundation run by trustees. That should be understood in countries like Greece. Such countries should not be distracted by the word "British" in


the title into imagining that the British museum is run by the Government. Returning the Elgin marbles would, in effect, involve confiscation of the trustees' private property.
My hon. Friend the Minister introduced the debate with admirable lucidity. However, I should like him to enlarge on what happens in respect of a country that has not yet joined the European Union but might join it in future. In that respect, I think of Norway.
Let us suppose that Munch's "The Scream", which was pinched from the Oslo museum over the weekend, were to turn up in four or five years' time in Bermondsey market or in the market in the Portobello road. Although I think that it is unlikely, suppose Norway joined the European Union in four or five years' time. What would be the legal position under the regulations with regard to returning the picture to Norway? Criminal law could be invoked and the picture could be returned as stolen property. However, I should like to know the position in respect of the draft regulations.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the scope of the regulations is limited. I am not sure how much good they will do. Are they permanent? If they are approved, how effective will the review be? My hon. Friend said that we must carefully monitor the way in which the regulations work.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said that he would welcome the control of illegal traffic. However, much of the trade in objects is perfectly legal at present. I am not sure whether we want to place a stop on that.
The spread of cultural treasures is good. If the regulations had been passed 50, 100 or 200 years ago, we would not be able to view any of the great foreign paintings that are on view today in the national gallery, the British museum or the Victoria and Albert museum. We would not see French impressionists or Dutch, Italian, German and Spanish paintings. Foreigners on the continent would not be able to see paintings by Turner, Reynolds or Gainsborough.
There seems to be a doctrine that any great work of art should remain permanently in the country in which it was created. That is nonsense. Are we really saying that the national gallery in Washington should return all its Rembrandts to Holland or that the French should whisk the Mona Lisa from the Louvre and send it back to Italy?
A great international collection in any country enables visitors to that collection, whether they are old or young, to compare and contrast paintings, furniture or other objects of different countries and different civilisations. The regulations could stop the international movement of fine works of art.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central wondered whether the regulations would affect the art trade. Obviously, they would if the movement of great works of art were stopped. London and New York are pre-eminent in the art trade and the art market. The world's greatest auctions for art objects are held mainly in London and New York.
My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has just succeeded in negotiating an agreement with the European Union which will help to preserve the art auction market in

London. There has been a threat that the market will move from the European Union to New York, Geneva, Hong Kong and other places outside the European Union.
It would be a great pity to stop the movement of all important works of art within the European Union. That would damage the auction trade in London. We are prominent in that trade, which helps to pull into this country overseas visitors who visit the auctions or make use of them by telephone. When those people come to London, they spend money in hotels and restaurants, on shopping and on internal travel. All that helps to generate trade and employment in the United Kingdom and to improve the tax return to the Government. We should be crazy if we were to knock the international art market in London.
It seems to me that these regulations give any country within the European Union the power to state unilaterally that any object—any painting or piece of furniture, for example—is a national treasure. There appears to be no obligation to produce any evidence or to make any kind of case. It seems that the process is purely arbitrary.
We shall have to wait a few years to see how the regulations work. My reading of them is that a state can simply claim that something is a national treasure, thereby preventing its movement. Other states do not stick to the rules as the United Kingdom does. The British tend to follow to the letter the European Union's rules in respect of trading matters. We are all aware that many continental countries are not equally conscientious. That could place us at a disadvantage. I hope for an assurance that the operation of the regulations will be subject to a thorough review.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), I support the regulations, so far as they go, as a step in the right direction. I shall cite in a little detail—although not at length, I promise—a particular case to illustrate what can happen. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) referred to the looting of churches, particularly in northern Cyprus.
A cause celebre is the Panayia Kanakaria mosaics from the church of Panayia, Kanakaria in Lythrangomi, which was overrun in the northern Cyprus invasion of 1974. These were still being used for religious observance until 1976, but then abandonment was necessary. It was reported in 1979 that the church was being used as stable and that some rather precious glass mosaics dating from the 5th century BC had been stolen. They depicted Jesus in the lap of Mary with the 12 apostles. They had been located in the apse, but they were lost.
Eventually—in 1988—they surfaced on the international market. They were on offer at $3 million, I understand, and were eventually acquired by an American art dealer. I understand that $1·2 million, cut various ways, changed hands. The American art dealer, as one would expect, attempted to market the mosaics. That was reported to the Getty museum and, to her credit, Dr. Marion True informed the Cyprus Department of Antiquities that they had surfaced on the black market in art works. Their return was requested, but the request was refused. The matter was taken to court and was eventually settled in the south district of Indiana in


October 1990. The mosaics are now being restored for display in a museum in Cyprus. That is just one example of desecration and systematic looting in northern Cyprus.
I stress that, in citing this case, I do not make any political point in connection with the invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus. I accept that the administration there does much to control the situation. Self-evidently, however, it is not doing enough, as that kind of thing is still going on.
I am not attacking the Turks as Muslims desecrating Christian churches and artefacts. Indeed, I have great respect for what the Turkish Government have done to preserve a cultural heritage that predates their arrival in that part of the near east. I think of the Ayix Sophia, and, in the case of modern times, the first world war cemeteries of Gallipoli. The authorities deserve much credit for that. Indeed, they themselves have much at stake, as they have their own rich heritage of unexcavated or undeveloped archaeological sites. In fact, some of the richest sites of classical archaeology are in mainland Turkey. The country has an embarrassment of riches and a vested interest in protecting them, and it takes rigorous steps to achieve that end.
We are dealing not just with northern Cyprus and Turkey. Hon. Members have mentioned churches in this country from which valuable artefacts have been taken. There are also the churches in rural Italy, and the hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned Czechoslovakia and icons that are systematically looted from churches in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. All of us have an interest in this matter.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this debate is restricted inasmuch as it relates to the countries of the European Union.

Mr. O'Hara: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I am grateful to you for allowing me to depart from the debate to such an extent. I was about to return to it.
This is not a matter of narrow national interests. It transcends national interest. It is a matter also of international scholarship. I should like to highlight an aspect of the subject that has not been mentioned so far. There has been mention of looted objects without provenance that appear on the art market. "Without provenance" is not just a term used in a catalogue. Archaeologically, it is a very important term; it means without associations in space, time or cultural and artistic affinity. When a professional archaeologist discovers an object, he or she notes its location, its level, what other objects have been found with it and where similar objects have been found.
I use this opportunity to take up a general observation by several hon. Members about the respect that nations in general owe to each other with regard to their cultural heritage. I shall try to stay within the European Union. I hope that, in the course of time, former imperial powers, such as the United Kingdom, will be more willing to return to their rightful homes artefacts that may, in their present locations, be objects of curiosity, as well as of love and appreciation. I am thinking, for example, of items in the British museum, the Victoria and Albert, the Louvre, the

Glyptothek, the New York Metropolitan and even the Getty, which would be of immeasurable cultural significance in their places of origin.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) suggested that there should be the mass emptying of museums and the return of every object to its place of origin. That is neither necessary nor desirable. If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, let me say that there was an element of reductio ad absurdum in the case that he put.

Mr. Jessel: Does the hon. Gentleman think that every important art object ought to be returned to its country of origin? If not, how would he distinguish between important and not so important objects?

Mr. O'Hara: I was about to say that that would not be necessary or even desirable. Cross-cultural exchange is important, for it makes for cross-cultural understanding. However, some artifacts transcend such considerations. Mention was made of the Elgin marbles—or the Parthenon marbles, as I prefer to call them. They are symbolic of the triumph of Greece over Persian aggression, of the triumph of freedom of thought, artistic expression and political institutions and of that classical tradition which we may take for granted now but without which we would not be as we are. Inferior as we are, we would be measurably worse off without that tradition.
The Elgin marbles should be with the Parthenon and the other great monuments dating from the third quarter of the 5th century BC. It is grotesque that we should be able to see the originals in the British museum while visitors to the Acropolis museum must make do with plaster copies. The British Government would do a great service internationally if they made the gesture of offering to return the Elgin marbles to Athens.
I ask those who bang a jingoistic drum to consider hypothetically what would be their reaction if Nelson's column had been removed from London by an invader and was displayed elsewhere—and I wonder how the Americans would feel if the statue of liberty had been similarly removed.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Would the hon. Gentleman return only the Elgin marbles?

Mr. O'Hara: I used them as a specific example, in response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham. I referred to objects that transcend normal considerations, and the Elgin marbles fall into that category.
I welcome the regulations as far as they go. I mentioned the damage done to scholarship if objects are looted and sold on the black market without provenance. Collectors share in that damage to scholarship.
The House will be aware of the controversy surrounding the Ortiz collection on display in the royal academy. I know, from what has been broadcast and published, that that exhibition presents many beautiful objects—but many shown in the catalogue are without provenance. They may speak to us directly with their beauty, but there is so much that they do not tell because they are displayed in relative isolation from their historical and cultural context. The more they say directly to the practised artistic or archaeological eye, the greater the frustration at what they could say, if only their provenance were known.
We should welcome the regulations in that they go some way towards protecting the cultural heritage of



member states and international scholarship. They rightly include compensation where it is due, and rightly also offer a salutary deterrent to wanton looting and collection—without which the looters' market fails. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central the hope that the Government will go further down that road, but we can applaud the first faltering steps that the regulations take.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) made a thoughtful speech, and I can associate myself with many of his remarks. We all agree that the proposals are modest, but they put down a marker in more ways than one.
There is universal condemnation of those who, without regard to context and true ownership, rob, pillage and sell cultural objects and view them merely as money. That is deeply to be deplored. Commercialism has done great damage in many walks of life and certainly has not over the years enhanced many people's artistic appreciation. There cannot be a single hon. Member who would not wish to deal vigorously with those who rob ancient sites, English churches or any other historic setting of its objects.
Rightly, Madam Deputy Speaker, you called the hon. Member for Knowsley, South to task when he strayed a little beyond the bounds of the European Union. Briefly, if I may, I shall make a couple of comments. I was indeed with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in Czechoslovakia with the all-party heritage group a few years ago. We were deeply dismayed at the way in which churches especially, but many other historic buildings, had been robbed and desecrated by those who had regard only for the monetary value that the objects could obtain.
In a European Union context, we were told that most of those objects were finding their way on to the international market through Germany, Holland and the United Kingdom. Anything that can curtail that must be good. We all want to congratulate the Minister and Her Majesty's Government on recognising in legislative form that that must be tackled.
Of course, that is only a small beginning. Later in the parliamentary Session I shall present a Bill on market ouvert that has now completed all its stages in the House of Lords. There are a number of markets in the country, of which Bermondsey is one, where, when an object is bought, the title automatically passes to the purchaser.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It depends on the hour.

Mr. Cormack: Most people who go there to buy—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It depends on the hour.

Mr. Cormack: Would the hon. Lady contain herself? I know that it is difficult—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not all day—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that I deplore seated interventions.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Cormack: Oh, all right.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was simply making the legal point that it is crucial that the transaction is done between the hours of daylight and sunset. Otherwise it does not transfer the title. I was not seeking to criticise the hon. Member, but simply trying to make the point absolutely clear.

Mr. Cormack: Of course, that is an extremely helpful intervention. For most of most days, when whatever object is sold at Bermondsey or at a number of other markets in the country which benefit from the same medieval exceptions, the title passes to the purchaser. However innocent the purchaser may be—like a lot of innocent purchasers, I bought a number of my Christmas presents there in the past year—and however honourable the people are who go to such markets, it is nevertheless clear that they are a channel for stolen goods from the United Kingdom and beyond.
If the Government are determined to build on the foundation stone of the motion, they must pass as quickly as possible the Bill introduced by the noble Lord Renton in another place. The Bill is necessary to deal not with the market, which is a most delightful institution where I am sure every hon. Member would like to go, but with the loophole to which I have referred.
I wish to be brief because other hon. Members want to speak, and will pass to the other subject which has cropped up in almost every speech—great national treasures. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South said that he would not wish to empty the great museums of the world, if I may paraphrase him. We would all agree, because art is universal and its message is universal. Anyone in France who does not have the opportunity to learn about the art of Flanders or Italy, or to see African sculpture at its best, or to be able to consider some of the extraordinary creations from Polynesia is impoverished. The same applies to people in this country who do not have similar opportunities.
I agree that some objects are so tremendously important, so integral to the context in which they were created, that they fall into a different category. I confess that in the past, whenever the Elgin, or Parthenon, marbles were mentioned, I fell back on the orthodox defence. Repatriating the Elgin marbles would open the floodgates: what would happen to all the treasures in Apsley house that were gathered by the Duke of Wellington, and all the pictures in the national gallery that were obtained by various means? I have rehearsed my arguments parrot fashion—and, indeed, believed them; but I have begun to have second thoughts.
Politicians must be prepared to examine long-held beliefs critically, and—sometimes—to admit that they may have been wrong. I am not attacking Lord Elgin: it is clear that he acquired the marbles legitimately, and paid for them. It is equally clear that they are beautifully displayed and magnificently cared for in the British museum, and that they are seen by millions of people. It would be cussed and contrary to send them back to Greece without a guarantee that they would be seen in equally advantageous conditions, conserved in the same manner and looked after properly.
Times change, however. It is beyond doubt that even to have contemplated the return of the Elgin marbles before or during the 1960s would have been entirely wrong, but


I now believe—I say this with some hesitation—that perhaps the matter should be reconsidered. I certainly think that the marbles fall into the supreme category referred to by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South. I also think that there is a strong case for saying that such magnificent—no, that word is not sufficient to describe them; these supreme—objects of European culture, which really set the tone for civilisation in our continent, should perhaps be where the ruined but noble Parthenon still stands.
I had the great good fortune to take a party of colleagues to Greece last year, in the company of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We were not lobbied on the subject of the marbles—no one sought to make any case to us—but, looking at the Parthenon and being bowled over by it, I could not help wondering whether the time had come for us to consider returning them. I am not being dogmatic; I am not saying that we should not keep them in any cirumstances. Certainly no one in this country has any reason to be other than proud of the way in which they are conserved and displayed by the British museum.

Mr. Jessel: I am sure that I do not need to remind my hon. Friend that the Greeks would have no intention of putting the Elgin marbles back on top of the Parthenon where they originally belonged but would instead put them in a museum in another part of Athens.

Mr. Cormack: Not in another part of Athens but hard by the Parthenon. I do not dispute that, but if the west front of Wells cathedral were in a museum in Malibu, or if the west front of Lincoln cathedral were in a museum in Germany, we might suggest that it would be better if those great carvings were brought back and displayed close to their original setting. That is all that I am saying. If one has second thoughts, I believe that one should express them to the House.
I have been slightly led astray by interventions, but I conclude as I began, by saying that this is a modest proposal and one that I warmly welcome. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the way in which he introduced it, and I am delighted to learn that the Opposition will not press the motion to a Division.

Mr. Bernie Grant: I had not intended to speak, but the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) aroused my anger. He said that, if artefacts were returned to their country of origin, the number of visitors and the income that they bring to this country would disappear. Perhaps the countries from which the artefacts came should receive that income instead of us.
He also said that some countries are not as conscientious as we are in the preservation of some works of art. I do not know much about European artefacts, but I know that a number of African objects currently in the British museum and elsewhere were made to fade away. They are religious artefacts and were supposed to turn to dust. By preserving them we are acting against the religious convictions of the people who created them, a matter that should be taken into account.
The regulations are to be welcomed. I hope that they set a precedent in terms of international co-operation. Some artefacts have been stolen or acquired in very strange ways by British collectors, the British museum and other institutions. Some were stolen from Africa during the

period of enslavement and colonisation. For example, the Ghanaians had to hide the sacred Ashanti stool from the invaders in case it was stolen and brought to this country; several obelisks are being kept here against the will of their owners in Africa; and the ivory mask of the Ino of Ife, which is a sacred object from Nigeria, is being held by the British museum which refuses to return it. I was once told that the nose of the Sphinx was in the British museum, so I contacted the curator who said that the museum did not have the nose but had part of the beard. I am sure that the Egyptians would like to display it and benefit from the revenue from students and those wishing to study it.

Dr. Spink: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the British museum has been a party to any illegality.

Mr. Grant: Far be it from me to suggest such an appalling thing, but there are those who will say that the ways in which certain articles have been acquired leave a lot to be desired. The House would do a great service to people around the world if it were to investigate the ways in which some artefacts were gathered and came to be displayed in the British museum. I also mention in passing the Crown jewels—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be pleased to know that I do not intend to dwell on them today—and some of my favourite pieces, such as the Cullinan diamonds or the Stars of Africa, which should be returned to that country.
What is meant by "British territory" in the regulations? Would an artefact that had been taken away from a Caribbean dependent territory such an Anguilla qualify to be returned? This is an important subject and it creates a lot of anger and emotion, certainly among people of African origin. I hope that the House will have an opportunity to have a wider debate on the issue which is not restricted only to Europe.
I thoroughly support the right of the Secretary of State to intervene and to be able to enter people's houses to chase up stolen objects. I hope that that right will apply to international objects. I hope that the regulations are merely the beginning.

Mr. Fisher: With the leave of the House, I wish to make one or two remarks.
This interesting debate has tested the scope, the implementation and the likely effectiveness of the regulations. The Government have received congratulations from hon. Members on both sides of the House on introducing the regulations, but the debate has been rather like going to the dentist because it has tested the regulations, which have winced at certain points.
Will the Minister comment on how the scope of the regulations will affect British cultural treasures? The regulations may not cover much of our heritage that is in private collections or in archaeological sites because the Government do not have a designated list of national treasures. If we are to benefit from the regulations, will the Minister confirm that his Department will now set about the task of drawing up a list of national treasures? Without it, we shall not benefit and much of our heritage will not be protected by the regulations.
Will the Minister comment on how his Department will implement the regulations? He will know that only nine of


the 52 police forces have antique liaison units. Without trained staff and officers, how will be fulfil the obligations that the regulations place on the Government?
Will the Minister comment on the effectiveness of art smuggling? He will know of press reports that works of art have been stolen from this country and have gone, via Switzerland, to France and are now on France's list of designated national treasures. That smuggling must be tackled, but it will not be unless there is much more commitment from the Government.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to the Government for introducing the regulations and have agreed, in the words of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, East (Mr. Cormack), that they are only a marker. Criticisms have been voiced about the Government's commitment to make them effective.
As I said earlier, the Government must implement the UNESCO treaty, UNIDROIT and the Mauritius Commonwealth convention. If they do so, they will give teeth to the regulations, which have the support of hon. Members. Severe doubts have been raised, however, about the Government's commitment to them.

Mr. Sproat: Many interesting points have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr.O'Hara) was pulled up for straying a bit wide of the subject, but I hope that we shall be able to return to the important points that he and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) made, which do not fall within my competence in this debate. So many important points were raised that I doubt whether I shall be able to do justice to all of them in the few moments remaining. I shall go through them in chronological order and if hon. Members wish to raise matters for me to deal with in correspondence I shall gladly do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) asked me how many requests had been made for the return of objects that had been here since 1993. I can tell him that no such requests have been made so far.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) launched an attack on the Government's case—rather, he said that, if there was a weakness in it, it was that we did not have any commitment to the measure. I can certainly assure him that we have a very real commitment to it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned various other bodies, which I cannot really go into in great detail here. They included UNESCO, UNIDROIT and others. At some stage, we may have a

debate on the whole question of cultural objects from around the world and what we should do about an object that unlawfully finds its way on to the New York market, but such matters are unfortunately not within the competence of this debate.
We do not agree with a number of central aspects of what UNESCO has suggested and do not therefore seek to incorporate them into the regime that we propose to establish. For example, UNESCO would like a specific certificate for every single cultural object. We believe that that would create an appalling bureaucractic nightmare and thus render the whole exercise totally impracticable.
Of course we are dedicated to ensuring that only lawfully exported goods find their way out of the country where they lawfully are into another, but there are ways and ways of doing that, and we believe that the regulations represent the best practical way and certainly the best compromise that we could find. It is entirely wrong to think that we are sceptical about the regulations. That is truly not so. We are extremely keen to make them succeed. We shall review their success in 1995–96. We will return to all these matters and see whether the regulations have done what we want them to do and, if not, how they can be improved.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked me a straightforward and fair question about whether we would take on any new staff. The answer is that we do not think that we shall have to. We have taken on two new staff already so that applications for export licences can be dealt with as quickly in the future as they have in the past. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question really depends on the amount of work arising from the regulations. Clearly, if we receive an absolute flood of requests from other EC member states saying, "Please follow up what we believe is an unlawfully exported object," more staff may be required, but our present view is that extra staff will not be needed.
Let me make it clear that we are not talking about objects that have been stolen, which rightly have to be dealt with and already can be dealt with through the courts. We are talking about objects that are unlawfully exported because they do not carry an export licence. An hon. Member might own an object perfectly legally and want to sell it in Rome. If he did not get an export licence—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [11 February].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Return of Cultural Objects Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.

Housing Support Grant (Scotland )

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.
I propose to keep my opening remarks brief. This is the seventh successive annual housing support grant order that I have laid before the House. Hon. Members will by now be familiar with the housing support grant system, but it may be helpful if I remind the House that housing support grant is a deficit subsidy paid to local authorities that, on the basis of reasonable assumptions about income and expenditure, would otherwise be unable to meet the costs of council housing from their rental income.
Full details of the grant settlement for the next financial year are set out in the order and the accompanying report. As always, I wish to express my thanks to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with whom the grant settlement was discussed. Although the convention has reservations about certain aspects of the settlement, I am grateful for the constructive and helpful approach that it takes in our annual discussions on these matters.
The draft order provides that the total grant payable next year will be £25.7 million. Broadly speaking, that sum represents the difference between the eligible expenditure and the relevant income of the authorities that, in the absence of grant, would have a deficit on their housing revenue accounts. Eligible expenditure consists mainly of loan charges and of management and maintenance spending. The loan charges that we estimate local housing authorities will have to meet next year are, as usual, based on a projection of each authority's capital debt to the mid point of the financial year, taking account of new borrowing and debt redemption.
To calculate interest charges, we applied to those projections of capital debt the pool interest rate expected for the local authority debt next year. Our present estimate of that rate is 9·2 per cent. Interest rates may fluctuate, however, and I can assure the House that, if there is a significant change in the estimate of the pool rate, the Government will, in line with usual practice, introduce an appropriate variation order to adjust the amounts of grant payable. For the moment, our estimate of total loan charges to be met from local authority housing revenue accounts amounts to £494 million.
The other main item of eligible expenditure is that on the management and maintenance of housing stock. Our estimate of eligible management and maintenance spending in 1994–95 is based on an assumed average spending level of £696 per house. That represents a 15 per cent. increase over the equivalent average for the current year. Although that is a generous increase, I consider it justified by the additional demands being placed on local authorities' housing management services, particularly as a result of the tenants charter. I would add that it is further evidence of the commitment of the Scottish Office to the maintenance of the physical condition of Scotland's housing stock.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In relation to the housing support grant that is given for the repair and building of hostels, what guidelines has the Minister issued to local authorities in

terms of the need to participate, to consult and have discussions with those who run and manage hostels? Will he ensure that those who run hostels have the right to determine or be involved in the way in which the money is spent?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is taking me slightly out of sequence. I am coming to that point. I am glad to say that some 20 district councils receive housing support grant for the hostels portion. The sum this year has gone up considerably as a result to £2,066,339, which is a substantial increase. I genuinely believe that local authorities are fully aware of the possibilities in that connection and it represents an indication of the co-operation between authorities and the Scottish Office.
On the other side of the equation—the estimated relevant income—the assumed average standard rent for next year has been set at £34·86 per house per week. I stress that that figure is not a forecast, guideline or recommendation. It is the average rent which, for the purposes of the grant calculations, we consider that the authorities should reasonably be expected to achieve. The actual rents charged by authorities may be higher or lower, according to their own decisions about income and expenditure.
I shall discuss the implications of the subsidy settlement for actual rents in a moment. Before doing so, I should mention the hostels portion of the housing support grant, on which we touched a moment ago. Since we decided three years ago to extend the hostels grant to all authorities with hostels, rather than limiting it to authorities that qualified on the basis of their housing revenue accounts as a whole, there has, as I mentioned, been a welcome increase in the number of hostel places made available by authorities from 1,796 in 1990 to 2,126 in 1993.
As I mentioned, the amount of grant has increased from £1·3 million to more than £2 million next year. I recognise, of course, that hostels are far from being the complete answer to homelessness, but I believe that they make a significant contribution to dealing with the single homeless. I am pleased that the partnership between the Scottish Office and local authorities in this area is definitely producing worthwhile results.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Is the Minister suggesting that any Scottish housing authority that applies for a hostels grant is likely to get it? The need for hostels for the homeless is widespread throughout Scotland and is not confined to local authorities that happen to have been given a grant this year.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Authorities have received a hostels grant in response to representations. There is one case within my knowledge in which the costs were far greater than was the case for the rest of Scotland. As the costs were considered excessive, the grant was not allowed. In general, authorities that are eligible and apply get the grant.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of Landsborough house in Ayr, which is provided by Kyle and Carrick district council? It was named in honour of a former councillor, the late James Landsborough, and is an excellent provision for the single homeless in Ayr. Is the Minister also aware that, due to the lack of foresight and to the inept planning of


Tory-controlled Kyle and Carrick district council, that newly equipped hostel will have to be knocked down? Is not that completely ridiculous and a waste of public expenditure? Will the Minister tell us exactly how he will deal with that in relation to the expenditure that will be required to replace Landsborough house and to provide sufficient alternative accommodation?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Kyle and Carrick district council is receiving the hostels portion housing support grant of £50,032, if I have read the order correctly. The priorities chosen by the council are a matter for it. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the details, because I have not been directly involved and it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Office to be involved in choosing local priorities, which should more properly be a matter for local democracy. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I am prepared to look into that point. Perhaps he will give me a note of the circumstances. I shall, of course, reply to him fully.

Mr. John McAllion: The Minister said that there would be about 2,000 places for the homeless in hostels. What is the current level of homelessness in Scotland in terms of individuals registered as homeless with local authorities?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The numbers of homeless people have increased. Two thirds of the applicants have given as the immediate cause of homelessness the fact that their family or friends are no longer willing or able to accommodate them. Shelter's figures show a 15 per cent. increase in homelessness. The Government have seen the figures. As Shelter has said, most of the increase related to Glasgow and at least part of the increase seems to be due to under-counting in previous years rather than to a real increase in 1992–93. Scottish Office statisticians have discussed the figures for Glasgow with a view to publishing more accurate estimates shortly. In my winding-up speech, I shall give the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) our best estimate of the numbers.
General fund contributions represent a subsidy from council tax payers to council tenants. This sort of subsidy is indiscriminate because it benefits all tenants regardless of their circumstances, and it is unnecessary because tenants who are unable to meet the costs of their housing receive assistance in the form of housing benefit. Therefore, I make no apoligy for the proposals in the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1994 to bar authorities from budgeting to make general fund contributions next year.
Authorities were consulted individually about these proposals and only nine of them saw fit to make representations on the matter. I have examined those representations carefully and concluded that none of them presents a case that is strong enough to justify allowing them to make a general fund contribution.

Mr. Thomas Graham: When the Government previously allocated funds to the homeless in Renfrew district, the council was allowed to buy four houses in the private sector. When the local folk complained about that, the information that they received from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Under-Secretary, was that the district council

could have used the money to improve flats. When Renfrew district council received the money, what information did it receive about how to spend the money—whether it could be used to refurbish council flats for the homeless or whether the council was forced to buy private houses?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We issued a special allocation of more than £20 million for special projects. The hon. Gentleman may have a point in saying that it could have been done better. An enormous amount has been achieved throughout Scotland as a result of those special projects, and that is the view of Shelter as well. We are learning all the time. If the hon. Gentleman has recommendations to make, they will be taken into account in the future.

Mr. Graham: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am tempted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to develop this point.
The effect of the subsidy proposals on authority rent levels will vary. Decisions on such rent levels are a matter for authorities, but I accept that some of them will be influenced by the levels of subsidies. We should not, however, exaggerate the extent of that influence.
A large majority of authorities in Scotland do not receive housing support grant in respect of their mainstream council housing or make general fund contributions. Clearly, the subsidy proposals will have no impact on the rent decisions of those authorities. For the 17 authorities that currently receive grant in respect of their council housing, the effect of the change in the level of grant from this year to next will vary. In most cases, the grant is a relatively minor component of housing revenue grant income and the impact of the change in grant levels is likely to be outweighed by the decisions of authorities on such matters as management and maintenance spending.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will know that many tenants who are on co-operative or district council waiting lists are offered community-based housing association properties. Is he concerned that many of the community-based housing associations where tenants find housing are facing rent increases of 30, 40 or 50 per cent? Surely he should be concerned about what is happening in that area, because hardship is being created.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Many of those matters must be discussed at the local level. Certainly, the levels of housing association grant in Scotland are on average higher than those south of the border. The purpose of that is to ensure that housing associations continue to cater for their traditional clients.
The amount of housing benefit that will be paid this year is likely to be more than £750 million. Of that amount, it is estimated that more than £500 million is likely to be paid to local authority tenants—and paid by the Department of Social Security to local authorities. That is a significant factor in relation to rents. As I have made clear, decisions on council rents are matters for local authorities, and the Government's influence on those decisions is limited. Nevertheless, it has become a tradition—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will develop the point, and then give way to the hon. Gentleman. It has become a tradition at my meetings with the convention for me to forecast the overall average rent increase for the coming year, despite the Government's subsidies forming such a small proportion of the housing revenue account income. That makes it extremely difficult to forecast average rent increases with any accuracy.
Despite that, I advised the convention this year that I expected rent increases for 1994–95 to average between 4 and 5 per cent. That remains my best estimate, although I note that a number of authorities, including Glasgow, have already announced average rent increases for next year that are well below my estimate of 5 per cent.
I know that Opposition Members will consider that, when compared with current rates of inflation, a rent increase of 5 per cent. is too high. I must remind them that year by year, local authorities are making real improvements in the management and maintenance services that they provide to their tenants. It is right that those extra costs should be met by those tenants who can afford to do so. Tenants who cannot afford to meet their housing costs receive housing benefit and are fully protected against rent increases.

Mr. Canavan: The Minister will recall that he and I were elected to Parliament on the same day. At that time, the Labour Government had introduced the whole system of housing support grants and virtually every housing authority in Scotland qualified for assistance under that system. We now have a situation where virtually none of them do. My local authority gets no support at all, except under the hostel agreement.
The flagship of the Government's housing policy seems to be Scottish Homes, the national housing authority. The authority announced a 6 per cent. increase in rents early this week, which is more than twice the rate of inflation. How can the Minister justify that increase, at a time when he is imposing a limit of a 1·5 per cent. increase on public sector workers' wages? That is a disgrace, and it is a cut in the living standards of working-class people and their families. Is it not about time that the Government, and the Minister in particular, recognised that and took action to give housing authorities, including Scottish Homes, sufficient resources to improve the housing stock, as well as recognise that a reasonable level—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The decision on rents was a matter for the Scottish Homes board and, as a result, more will be spent on Scottish Homes' stock and on the public sector tenants who are living within that stock.
There has also been a movement away from generalised subsidies towards personalised subsidies, through housing benefit. I mentioned the sum of £750 million which is to be spent on housing benefit in Scotland. I defy any hon. Member to say that that is a small sum. It is an enormous sum, and justly so. In that context, the proposals before the House make up a fair and reasonable subsidy package. They balance the interests of tenants, the council taxpayer and the national taxpayer. I commend the order to the House.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Here we are once again, having our annual February debate on the housing support grant order. The needs are greater once again, and the amount of cash keeps getting smaller. I notice, incidentally, that there are no nationalists in the Chamber; nor were there any in the Committee room upstairs where we were discussing sheriff court fees. We must conclude that the homeless and the state of Scotland's housing are matters far too unexciting for the three stooges to bother with.
I took a bet with myself on how long it would take for a Conservative Member to mention the irrelevance of housing benefit. I did not think that the Minister himself would introduce it so early in his speech. As Opposition Members have pointed out, housing benefit is obviously aimed at householders; it has nothing to do with building and repairing housing stock.
Today, we learn of the housing support grant—the only direct Government support for council housing—for 1994–95. Once again we see a drastic fall, from £36 million to £25·7 million, to be shared among just some of our housing authorities while others will receive not a penny. That is a cut of 28·4 per cent. As was pointed out, in 1980 the figure was £228 million, which was shared among all housing authorities. In that year, general fund contributions provided a further £100 million or thereabouts for housing.
This year, Glasgow's housing grant will be cut from £11 million to roughly £1·5 million. Edinburgh, the capital, will receive £0·5 million for hostels and nothing at all for its mainstream housing. It is hard to credit that our capital city is receiving not one penny for its mainstream housing.
Incidently, I wonder why the Minister does not have printed on the order, which is available from the Vote Office, a table showing each authority's housing support grant for mainstream housing and for hostels, showing who receives what, what they received last year, and who receives nothing at all. Would that not be a useful piece of information under the tenants charter?
How does the Minister come up with such an absurdly irrelevant, useless, out-of-touch, global figure of £25·7 million and such unfair and inadequate grants for some authorities and nothing at all for others? Believe it or not, one thing he does is to create a grant formula based not on actual levels of local authority income and expenditure but on notional levels of money spent and money coming in.
When I describe how the general portion of housing support grant alone is made up, hon. Members will see for themselves the scope for cheating homeless people and council tenants out of their rights. The Scottish Office's own document states:
the amounts by which the sum of estimated loan charges, estimated management and maintenance expenditure, estimated rents lost, estimated capital expenditure funded from current revenue and estimated other expenditure exceeds the sum of estimated rental income, estimated general fund contributions, estimated balances brought forward and estimated other income.
There are eight items to estimate, but hardly a hint of reality to be seen in any of them.
Let us consider rents lost. If a council decides to redevelop some of its houses, as happened in Glasgow and in other parts of Scotland, which it does with the full knowledge and co-operation of the Government, is it not farcical and unfair if it loses housing support grant because houses are standing empty and earning no rental income?


Instead of assuming 3 per cent. or any other percentage of income lost, why does the Minister not act on the reality of the actual rents lost?
When discussing this matter with local authorities, the Minister had the cheek to put the tenants charter on the agenda. He mentioned the right to repair. Remembering the year-on-year reductions in housing support grant and the number of eligible local authorities, we might ask "What with?"
The Minister builds in groundless assumptions all over the place. In his calculations he began by grossly overestimating income from rents. He anticipated an average increase in rents from £26·51 to about £34·86 a week. In support of that, so he said, he called in aid the rents for Scottish Homes. Considering that his decisions affect the rents of Scottish Homes, is that not like a burglar telling people they have no right to complain as he took even more from the house across the road?
Even if actual rents rise by 5 per cent. next year, the Minister's estimate of rental income will still be £236 million higher than the reality, and that fairy tale helps him to reduce housing support grant. The Government's assumed figure for management and maintenance for 1994–95 is less than the amount that authorities have told the Minister that they need to plan to spend. The Minister has increased the assumed figure per house by 15 per cent.Nevertheless, he comes nowhere near closing the gap between his notional figures and the reality—assuming that the local authority receives any housing support grant.
At present, only 29 housing authorities receive a grant of some type. Of those, 12 only do so as a result of receiving hostels grants. Just 17 out of a total of 56 receive housing support grant for their mainstream houses, and next year even fewer will do so—13 only will receive even that grossly inadequate support.
The settlement per house gets less and less every year. It is important to realise that fact when considering housing support grant figures each year. Not only are fewer authorities made eligible every year, but the amount per house, when one considers the remaining housing stock in the local authority sector, gets less year on year. In 1992, 697,000 houses received housing support grant of £47·5 million, or £68.10 per house. In 1993, the housing stock was down to 668,000, and £53·69 was received per house. In 1994, 646,000 houses are to receive £39·74 per house. That illustrates the way in which the Government, far from responding to the housing need in Scotland, on that per house basis are demonstrably worsening the condition of Scotland's public sector housing stock.
Last year, in the debate on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1993, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked the Minister what news he had for those people managing women's refuges to meet the growing demand for such hostel accommodation. The Minister replied that they are financed, not from housing support grant, but from the aggregate external finance. He did not commit himself to meeting the needs, but simply contented himself with a bureaucratic and technical answer—and still the refuges turn away many women whom they cannot help.
I ask the Minister, why do only a minority of housing authorities in Scotland qualify for hostel accommodation grant? Does the Minister think that homeless people,

people needing hostels under care in the community, and battered wives needing shelter, live only in certain parts of Scotland but do not exist in others? Should he not organise a grant system which meets the needs of the most desperate of our people?
Last year we pointed out that children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are more likely than others to suffer ill health. We emphasised the need for housing adapted to suit people with disabilities. We told the Minister of overcrowding in our constituencies. Since then, in addition, we have had the damning evidence of the Scottish Homes survey—the Minister may not remember its existence—commissioned by the Scottish Office about the condition of Scottish housing. Last year, in the debate on the Housing Suppoort Grant (Scotland) Order 1993, the Minister said that the survey
will be enormously helpful in pointing the way to effective targeting of resources in the future"—[Official Report, 17 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 445.]
Where are those extra resources? Why is the money being cut instead of increased?
At the current level of funding, by 2000 some people will still live in the damp houses that they now occupy. Where is the serious money to treat damp houses and prevent so many of our nation's children from growing up with asthma and bronchitis due to the damp and difficult-to-heat housing in which their parents are forced to live.
Hon. Members have pointed out that rents are increasing inexorably. In 1979, the average council house rent was £4·92 a week. Under the present Government, tenants will pay about £28 next year. Those rents have increased well in excess of inflation. Tenants are paying more and getting less for their money.
Thirteen years ago, Scottish housing authorities built 7,000 houses for rent in one year. In 1992, they could build only 1,650. They have even had to pull down housing of sound construction which has deteriorated as a result of lack of investment. The Government have created a shocking waste of public money.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out at Labour's local government and European conference a week ago, we have called time and again on this dogma-bound Government to allow local authorities to embark on a new programme of house building for the thousands of homeless families in our communities and the thousands more young couples who desperately need homes of their own. We should provide jobs for building workers and suppliers across Britain who are crying out for new orders.
Once again, the housing support grant is an abysmal failure. It is a smack in the face and a sneer of cold disdain to every one of our people who is inadequately housed from a Government who long ago lost any sense of being a Government for all our people.
I call on my hon. Friends to vote against the order. We should tell the Government to tear it up and come back with an order that addresses the problem. In future, the Government should not come to the House with such grossly inadequate funding for local authorities when they know so well the size of the crying need.

10 pm

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Glasgow, where I was this afternoon, is experiencing one of its worst days of winter and we are experiencing similar


conditions down here in London. I am grateful to organisations such as the Simon Community, the Salvation Army, the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church for doing something to help our homeless people. The Government stand condemned for failing to do what those charitable organisations are trying to do. How can the Government claim that, with housing support grant, they are helping to build more hostels when they are aware of the terrible pressures that local authorities face?
My native city of Glasgow has an excellent record in respect of helping the single adult homeless. The Government have done nothing but try to hinder the city. Without finance, local authorities cannot help the single homeless.
There have been two by-elections in my constituency. Like many other members of the Labour party, I had an opportunity to canvass and meet people on housing estates. It is a sad indictment on us that some of those housing estates are worse than they were 30 or 40 years ago.
Tenants remember when some of those housing estates were excellent places in which to live. As a result of the Government, who claim to be the Government of law and order, turning a blind eye to the antisocial behaviour of some tenants, other tenants are living in fear. They are not secure in their own homes.
Head teachers have reported that children are taking it in turns to stay away from school because at least one child in a family has to remain at home to stop the home from being burgled. The Government are simply taking finance away from local authorities. If the Government are serious about law and order, they should ensure that every tenement flat has a security entry system. The Minister should provide money for such systems.
If tenement flats had security entry systems, elderly and young people would know that no one was prowling around the back door, on the landing or up the close trying to see whether anyone was at home. Those systems would help to reduce crime. They would also help tenants who take pride in their properties, who wash the stairs and keep the gardens clean. They would know that no passer-by could get in to destroy what they had worked hard to achieve.
Years ago, if tenants—possibly elderly people—were standing around, strangers were not able to enter. Nowadays, elderly people are frightened to tackle strangers, so they need a secure system. The Minister ought to give serious consideration to that matter in the case of every council property and, indeed, every private property. Grants are available.
I am thinking especially of multi-storey flats. I have heard Conservative Members criticise local authorities for building such flats. Actually, some of them are beautiful and a joy to live in. I wish there were one in London that I could use four days a week. There are several such buildings in my constituency. The Government of the day forced the local authorities to construct multi-storey flats, threatening to withdraw grant from those refusing to build non-traditional housing. That is the type of thing with which the House concerns itself at present.
If the Minister seriously wants to secure an improved quality of life for the tenants of multi-storey flats, he should make provision for a concierge service and for camera surveillance at points of entry. In my constituency we have what are the equivalent of three streets rising into the sky. In some cases, anyone can gain entry—drug

addicts and burglars, for example. There is evidence that a block of flats with a concierge service is a much better place in which to live.

Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman will have his own opportunity to speak.
The Minister mentioned Scottish Homes. I realise that this debate is about local authorities, but there is a comparison to be made here. I suspect that the Minister is more interested in looking after Scottish Homes than in looking after local authorities. After all, that is where his placemen are. The Minister can pick the Sir James Mellons of this world, but he cannot pick the democratically elected local authorities and the housing convenors. It must be said that most of the Scottish Homes property in my constituency is excellent. It is well looked after and is a credit to tenants and management.
The Minister is aware, however, of my deep concern about some of the community-based housing associations, some of which are getting too big for their boots. An association in the constituency of Hillhead increased rents by 50 per cent. What would happen if a local authority did that? When an increase of £1 a month was proposed for dwellings in Glasgow, there were almost riots in George square. Trade bodies, the tenants' association and everyone else turned out.
In my constituency, some rents have increased by 30 per cent. What makes the situation worse is the fact that 75 per cent. of the rent income of some community-based housing associations is spent on administration—paying for officials. Thus owner-occupiers in the catchment area are not contributing as much as those who pay rent, resulting in an unfair burden on the latter. The agency responsible is none other than Scottish Homes.
Many tenants who have been with a community-based housing association for 15 or 16 years find, when they apply for a house or a flat in another part of the association's area—perhaps because of arthritis or some other disability—that they are granted a change of dwelling only if they opt for an assured tenancy instead of a secure tenancy. The Conservative party talks about citizens charters and people's rights, but every day of the week in my constituency tenants are losing their right to appeal to a tribunal. I hope that the Minister will examine that aspect.
One terrible case with which I am dealing concerns a woman whose husband left the matrimonial home. She has been told by the housing association—which is an agent for Scottish Homes—that she can remain in the property, but on an assured tenancy. That is the worst kind of discrimination. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House fought for women's rights and now those rights are being lost.
There is no sheltered housing in the Haghill and Germiston communities in my constituency, yet the houses there were built before the war—under the John Wheatley legislation. Some tenants have lived there since they were two or three years old, after leaving the slums and other parts of the city. Now that they are of advanced years, there is no sheltered housing for them. To obtain that, they must leave the friends and relatives with whom they have lived all their lives. Why should not those who have put something into society get something back at the end of their days?


There have been many debates about council house sales. I am on record as saying in Glasgow district council in 1974 that we should experiment before the Government moved in and forced a local authority to sell its housing stock. Some of my hon. Friends were also councillors at that time. Perhaps that is how I got a reputation for being a so-called right winger. The sale of council houses may be successful in desirable areas, but young couples are not getting the chance that their mothers and fathers, and even their grandparents, had of obtaining a better house.
How can the Minister say to young couples who have been paid off by the railway workshop or the cigarette factory in my constituency, "You can buy your council house"? They do not have two ha'pennies to rub together. They cannot even afford to send their children to the Christmas treat at school. How can the Minister say, "If you want a nicer house, buy one"? Local authorities must have the flexibility to give a chance to young couples who have served their apprenticeship in bad housing.
The Minister sold off decent housing. It was a popular move. In my constituency, some local authority houses that were bought at a discount for £10,000 have changed hands several times and are now on the market for £40,000. Some people have done very well, but unless the Minister gives local authorities the money to buy two, three, four and five apartment houses, there will be losers. Those people who will lose deserve something better than they have now.

Mr. Bill Walker: I may say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), as one right winger to another, that I agree with him on the voluntary bodies issue. We are fortunate that there are such bodies, which show that they care and take action.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about what I would call realistic rents. I have always believed that local authorities should charge realistic rents, which would ensure that properties were maintained in a viable condition. If we had done so many years ago, we would have had funds available through the rents system to deal with the massive problems of dampness and so on. Housing benefit takes care of those who cannot pay, and it should be the vehicle through which funds are used to ensure that local authorities maintain their stock in a viable condition.
While I am sure that the hon. Member for Springburn is right in saying that some multi-storey buildings are nice places in which to live, he must agree that most people, given the option, would prefer to live in a different kind of property. That is my experience of people wishing to obtain housing.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) referred to the security of some of those properties and to the security systems on the doors. Does my hon. Friend agree that such matters are for the local authority rather than for the Government? Is he aware that in the city of Aberdeen many local authority properties are having such systems fixed?

Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend. If local authorities had had realistic rents from the outset, all those

things would have been funded adequately and properly. The hon. Gentleman's reference is another example of insufficient cash to deal with problems.
The hon. Member for Springburn mentioned housing associations. I am sure that he is right in believing that some housing associations may have caused problems. In my constituency, the vast majority of the housing associations do a good job and I commend them.
However, the hon. Gentleman highlighted something that should be examined—the incidents in which individuals, for a variety of reasons, are forced into a transfer of tenancy. They should not be forced from a secured tenancy, with all that that means, into taking an assured tenancy with the resulting changes in the parameters. That question needs to be examined and perhaps the Government will take it on board.
In conclusion, as I know that many hon. Members want to speak, may I say that I am delighted that at long last we are beginning to talk in a sane way about how we fund local authority housing.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I, too, recall speaking in the same debate on 17 February last year. It seems that, one year on, matters have not greatly improved. As we heard, rents have continued to rise and, according to Shelter, homelessness in Scotland has risen by 15 per cent. in the past year. Of Scotland's housing stock, 4·7 per cent. is still below a tolerable standard.
As the Minister knows, I have a special interest in housing in rural areas, where the problem is especially acute. Again, homelessness has increased and the proportion of housing of a low standard is larger than in other areas. In 1991, according to Scottish Homes figures, 6·6 per cent. of rural housing was below tolerable standard as against 4·3 per cent. in urban areas. Low wages, which tend to prevail in rural areas, especially in the highlands and islands, mean that, usually, local people cannot afford to pay market prices for housing. In 1990, Market Research Scotland found that 83 per cent. of people living in rural areas could not afford to pay more than £30 a week. Those people are not only facing that problem of hardship, but face higher living expenses than those in the rest of the country.
In many areas, the situation is exacerbated by the demand for holiday homes. I spoke about that last year and the Minister wrote to explain the Government's thinking behind the 50 per cent. council tax discount for holiday homes in Scotland and in England, especially in places such as the Lake District, but, of course, not in Wales. I am still worried about the lack of any attempt to secure a population balance in small communities which can so easily end up lifeless. I have seen it all too often: every second house has become a holiday home, people have left and the place is dead.
As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), Scottish Homes has just announced an average rent increase of £2·07p a week—6 per cent.—from 1 April. The Minister said that that was not a matter for him: I think that we shall hear the phrase "not a matter for me" more and more in this place. But whatever gloss the Minister puts on the housing position and whatever figures are bandied about, I still receive far too many letters about housing problems in rural parts of my constituency. Let me give two examples.


An ambulance man employed in accident and emergency services, and restricted to a certain rural area—albeit quite a large one—by operational requirements, has been on the housing waiting list since 1991. Although that man plays an important part in the community, he has to live in a caravan: to me, that means that he is homeless. It is dreadful that someone who gives service to the community cannot obtain a home. I wonder what he thinks as he passes all the empty holiday homes; I am sure that he is not too happy.
I received a letter about a man with two children, whose wife is pregnant again. He lost his job when the company for which he worked went bankrupt, through no fault of his. He was unable to keep up the mortgage payments; all four lived in one room—lent by a friend—for six months or so and then in a box room in a relative's house. Eventually, the man managed to get another job, which took him away for two out of every three weeks. That relieved the situation somewhat, but the stress and anxiety took their toll on his wife's health. I am glad to say that, after a year, Argyll and Bute district council housed the family, but it was a long and difficult year for them.
According to the district council's housing plan for 1993–98, the housing condition survey found that much of the stock in my constituency—in both the public and the private sector—was in urgent need of repair. The cost was estimated to be some £163 million and that was based on 1989 prices. Where on earth will the council find that kind of money?

Mr. Brian Wilson: I am sure that in the hon. Lady's constituency—as in parts of mine, such as the islands of Arran and Cumbrae—there is support across the political spectrum for allowing the council to stop selling houses in areas where there is high demand and little supply. The Scottish Office, however, will not even make the concession of allowing the council to stop selling at any point in the decline of the stock. Surely, in rural communities experiencing the circumstances described by the hon. Lady, the least that the Government could do would be to allow authorities that discretion, given that it is not even a matter of local political contention.

Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. Over the years I have advocated that local authorities should be allowed to stop selling because they know what the problems are. How can it be regarded as dreadful that some thought should be given to a change of use being granted before family houses are turned into holiday homes and thus adding to the numbers that are left empty.
I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to hear that I intend to finish on a positive note—

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the hon. Lady agree that the capital debt overhang afflicts housing in many Scottish councils, including the central belt and the rural communities? The position is especially bad in the rural areas because more housing stock there has been sold. Is she aware that the entire rental income of at least one council in Scotland is not enough to cover the interest payments on the accumulated capital debt? In such circumstances, how on earth is it possible for a council to invest in its housing stock?

Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has reinforced my argument. I remarked that Argyll and Bute district council was asking where it would get the money to tackle its housing problem.
As I was saying, the Minister will be delighted to know that I shall finish on a positive note. Some harsh words have been said about Scottish Homes and in the past I have accused it of not honouring its promises. However, I welcome the joint announcement that was made last week by Scottish Homes and Highland and Islands Enterprise that they are carrying out a major study of the link between rural housing availability and economic development.
The population of the highlands and islands has been rising steadily over the past 20 years and is currently about 370,000. Although people are arriving, many indigenous people are having to move away and the lack of housing in rural areas is seen as a major constraint on the economic and social development which is so necessary if local people are to have the opportunity to stay if they so wish. I know that there are particular problems in the western isles and north-west Sutherland where the reduction in population is a cause of great concern.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise said:
Economic development creates demand for housing, while a lack of suitable housing is a block to the creation of employment which underpins communities. This is particularly true of remote rural areas, where the gain or loss of a few households or jobs c an make the difference between a community progressing or declining.
I wholly agree with that statement. I am glad that the study will include the remoter parts of the highland region, the Western Isles, Shetland and my own constituency of Argyll and Bute. I want to put it on record that the joint study is being undertaken. I hope that it will be carried out in good time and that any recommendations will be acted on speedily. I shall certainly be watching very carefully to see that they are carried out.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: When some of my colleagues became aware that I might try to catch your eye to be allowed to speak on housing, Madam Speaker, they queried whether I should be allowed to do so, bearing in mind that I represent Strathkelvin and Bearsden, a constituency usually associated with leafy suburbs in which the majority of the population own their own homes. However, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) knows, that is not quite a true picture. It has been suggested that the Government recession has brought us to such a state that even the good burghers of Bearsden are in difficulty over council housing.
There is little council housing in the Bearsden part of my constituency—a small sheltered housing development—but that is not the case in Strathkelvin. In Strathkelviln, of which I represent a part, there are 8,055 council houses, of which 4,834 are in my constituency. The majority of those, just over 3,000, are in Kirkintilloch, there are some in Bishopbriggs and the rest are in Lennoxtown and Torrance. Those are looked after by an excellent district council with a tip-top housing department.
The housing stock is kept in good repair. The council has just completely replaced all window frames and installed insulation. It has a devolved, democratic system of fulfilling the wishes of the people of Kirkintilloch, Bishopbriggs, Lennoxtown and all other areas. It is responsive to people's wishes and needs in this important


area. Lest anyone persists in the notion that my constituency consists of leafy suburbs, let me say that that is not the case.
Once again, the Government have given nothing by way of housing support grant to Strathkelvin. Does that mean that there are no problems in my area? Certainly not. My surgery is regularly filled with people looking for houses. They have been looking for many years, but are making no progress. Many of them want exchanges. Homelessness is a problem in my constituency. The homeless write to me and come to my surgery, but they have been given nothing by the Government.
The Minister will tell us that the housing support grant is basically deficit-based. He will say that it is based on estimated relevent income, eligible maintenance, relevant accounts, estimated this and estimated that. That means that it is plucked out of the air. Is all that estimation relevant or in any way related to the needs of people in the area? It should be related to those needs, but in my area it clearly is not. How can it be, when the Minister gives no housing support grant to combat major homelessness and help people who have been waiting six or seven years for council houses?
It is clear that the method of calculating the formula is wrong and it is time to return to the drawing board and reassess the calculation so that it relates purely to need. I hope that the next housing support grant proposals will relate to that and will give my district authority, which spends money wisely and well and looks after its housing stock, a greater amount.
My housing authority is so highly regarded in the district that residents of Scottish Homes who are being offered new landlords wish the district authority to take over. There are 488 houses—

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Galbraith: I shall certainly give way to my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir Nicolas Fairbairn: Local authorities hold 100,000 unoccupied houses. If they were occupied would not that do something for the homeless?

Mr Galbraith: If they were occupied there would be people in them! That would certainly do somethng for those people. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are often good reasons for such houses being unoccupied. I shall not abuse my hon. and learned Friend any more. He is a splendid friend of mine and we have spent much time together.
The issue has been raised many times. My constituents who currently reside in Scottish Homes wish the district authority to be their new landlord. Yet that choice has not been open to them, because of the connivance and instruction of the Government, who spend all their time talking about choice, freedom of the individual and devolving power, which we all realise is a complete fallacy because they give choice only when it suits them.
This is an issue of which the Government should be ashamed. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will use his good powers with Scottish Homes to allow it to conduct a ballot and thereby give my constituents who live in its housing the opportunity to propose Strathkelvin district as

its landlord, because it has shown itself to have a highly efficient, effective, devolved and accountable housing management system which is a credit to the area. I trust, therefore, that, when the Minister proposes the housing support grant next year it will adequately recognise the needs of my community.

Mr. Mike Watson: From those who have participated in the debate, it is clear that the housing problems of the city of Glasgow are desperate.
I held a surgery last weekend. Thirteen constituents attended, 10 of whom raised issues related to the standard of their housing in one form or another—repairs, overcrowding, dampness and similar problems. Hon. Friends who represent constituencies not only in Glasgow but in conurbations throughout Scotland receive such complaints regularly.
The housing support grant figures that the Minister gave this evening betrayed once again the lack of grasp that he and his fellow Ministers have of the housing needs of Scottish people. The figures were not based on local authorities' estimates of their needs. The Scottish Office, contrary to those estimates, ignores the actual income and expenditure of local authorities. It regularly meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the larger local housing authorities, but continually ignores the advice and information that it is given.
Housing support grant has dropped from £47·5 million in 1992–93 to £35·9 million last year and to under £26 million this year. Grant for Glasgow, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, has the most severe housing problems in Scotland, has decreased from £11 million to just over £1·5 million. That is woefully inadequate. The Minister has been told time and again by Glasgow district council and by housing authorities that considerable additional resources are necessary and that the problems will be addressed only by debt write-off. He continues to ignore that, and the problems continue to mount.
At present, 60 per cent. of the housing revenue account, of which housing support grant once provided a major part but now provides only a minor part, is spend on repaying local authorities' loans. Tenants are more likely to be paying off interest on those loans than getting any improvement in the housing stock in return for their rent.
Housing support grant is now under £26 million for the whole of Scotland, but only 13 years ago it was £228 million. If the Government convince my hon. Friends and me that the situation is improving, they will have done a remarkable job because we all know from our surgeries that the problems are getting worse rather than better.
COSLA calculates that, on a cumulative basis, about £1·8 billion has been taken out of housing resources in Scotland in the past decade. That direct Government support would have been available if funding had continued at anything like its level when housing support grant was introduced. That is a massive amount and I invite the Minister to comment on what it could have done in terms not only of building new houses, treating dampness and repairing leaking roofs and ill-fitting windows, all of which can contribute to the incidence of chronic illness throughout the central belt of Scotland, but of providing shelter for homeless people.
When I spoke in the debate a year ago I highlighted the plight of homeless people in Glasgow and mentioned some of the organisations seeking to help them. Their situation is worse now than it was a year ago. The resources of the Glasgow Council for Single Homeless have been slashed, and the Stopover project, a vital refuge for young single homeless people, has been closed for the past three months, with no sign of when it will reopen although it was supposed to do so at the beginning of the year.
The situation continues to get worse. In the meantime, the Government's answer, which is highlighted in the figures put before the House today, is grossly to overestimate the rent increases that can be charged and grossly to underestimate the management and maintenance costs that local authorities will face. It would be interesting if we could reverse that equation even once, to try to pull back some of the ground that has been lost over the past 10 years.
There are many appalling homes, particularly throughout the central belt of Scotland, and thousands of people without any home at all. According to the figure that the Minister cited, the total number of places being made available in hostels throughout Scotland is just over 2,000. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that hostels are not the answer to the problem of homelessness, but when set against the total number of homeless in Scotland that figure comes nowhere near to addressing the problem.
Over the past few days, there have been comments about the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), the most interesting of which was that the hon. Gentleman has three homes. I do not know what anyone does with three homes. I continually meet people who would do anything to get one home. [Interruption.] I will gladly give way to the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), if he wants to intervene. Apparently he does not.
The problem of home ownership needs to be looked at. The Government say that they are trying to deal with the problem, yet their supporters include the hon. Member for Finchley, who quite happily owns three homes. The hon. Member for Stirling sees nothing wrong in that. Other hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) think nothing of trading with council houses as though it were an excellent way of making extra money.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Watson: Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman is always amusing.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I presume that the hon. Gentleman has a home in Scotland; and, as he lives down here, he will also have one in London. That is two.

Mr. Watson: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has managed to put one and one together and make two; for this evening, that is a quite remarkable achievement. Of course I have a home in London and a home in Glasgow. But the hon. Member for Finchley has his constituency in London, so he should require no more than one home.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We are talking about housing in Scotland, not Finchley.

Mr. Watson: I agree that this is a debate on housing support, Mr. Morris, and I do not suppose Finchley gets much housing support. I drew attention to it merely to contrast the situation with the problems that I meet daily in Scotland.
Many Scottish local authorities have a number of houses lying empty and unable to be let to tenants. There are reasons for that. There is certainly no lack of demand for them and no lack of will on the part of local authorities to repair them and make them habitable. The local authorities lack the resources to enable them to make those houses habitable and secure and to re-let them. The Minister has had this point put to him on countless occasions, especially in relation to Glasgow, but has refused to take the arguments on board.
The level of housing support grant has continued to diminish as a result of the Secretary of State once again making those totally unrealistic assumptions, overestimating the amount that will be raised from rents and underestimating the appropriate level of repairs and maintenance. When will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Scottish Office figures that he uses to calculate both those figures are well wide of the mark?
The question of rents was referred to earlier. In respect of income from rents, the Minister has told us that he is assuming that rents will be £34 and above per week next year. That is about 31 per cent. higher than the present average rent. The figure of 5 per cent. was used earlier, and it was pointed out that even that is well above the current rate of increase in the cost of living. The Minister anticipates a figure of approximately six times that. Even if rents rose by 5 per cent., rental income in Scotland would still be about £235 million short. The Minister must be more realistic in his assumptions.
It bears repeating that housing support grant is now the only direct Government support for council housing in Scotland. For next year, projected income has been overstated by about £235 million, with maintenance expenditure overestimated by £18 million. [Interruption.] The Minister may think that that is a matter for some amusement. Those I meet weekly in my constituency do not. They are desperately concerned and the housing department in Glasgow is equally desperately concerned.
At the Minister's December meeting with COSLA, he stated that any authority which faced an above average rent increase for the next year, based on his assumptions, would be treated sympathetically when it applied to receive recognition of the requirement to make a general fund contribution. He said in his opening remarks that, of the nine authorities that had applied, apparently with his encouragement, not one had been permitted to do so. The Minister rejected all the submissions and he did not say why. I hope that he will take the opportunity to give his reasons when he winds up. What is the point in encouraging local authorities to make use of the general fund contribution when none of them has been allowed to do so?
We must look at the picture across Scotland as a whole. It has already been said that only 13 of the local authorities are getting the mainstream grant from the housing support grant, only 21 are getting the hostels grant and, astonishingly, only 6 per cent. are getting both. Those figures include major conurbations. The city of Dundee gets nothing. Edinburgh gets nothing for its mainstream


grant. Other major conurbations, such as Motherwell, Renfrew, Inverclyde and Aberdeen, get nothing in either category. I invite the Minister to justify that.
We have seen the housing conditions survey and the figures that it produced on the standards of housing throughout Scotland. The Minister is living in a different

world, and so are those of his hon. Friends who think that there is nothing wrong in owning a number of houses. I want to deal with the problems of people who either have no home at all or who live in totally inadequate housing. That is what this debate should be about, but it is not, because the funding has been consistently cut. That can only mean poorer housing for many of those whom Scottish Labour Members represent.

Mr. Alex Salmond: If we look at the details of the financial provision about which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) was speaking, we see that, 13 years ago, the housing support grant stood at £228 million and the general fund contribution at £100 million. Next year, the combined total of both will be a mere £26 million. On a cumulative basis, that represents the £1·8 billion loss of revenue for housing over the past decade that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central specified.
No other aspect of social provision can have such a direct impact on people's lives as the lack of housing finance. The problems of dampness, inadequate housing and homelessness are rife throughout Scotland. I know that the Minister is a compassionate man. I hope that he will deal with those aspects in the debate and show that he recognises that the lack of housing finance over the past decade is causing real problems for people throughout Scotland.
The basic limitation on housing finance in Scotland is the capital debt overhang. In fact, 60p to 65p of every pound of rent paid in Scotland goes to refinance the interest payment on the housing accumulated capital debt. In many councils, the figure is almost 100 per cent. For Gordon council, in north-east Scotland, the figure is more than 100 per cent. In those circumstances, it is simply impossible for councils to reinvest adequate sums in the maintenance of houses, never mind in any building programme. I would like the Minister to tell us directly how on earth finance can be injected into housing when individual district councils face such a financial problem.
I suspect that the Government's attempt to diminish public housing in Scotland was sourced in two hopes. First, there was an ideological drive against public housing—and perhaps the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) was the main protagonist. The argument was that if public housing was reduced in Scotland, people would be more amenable to the idea of voting for the Conservatives. Over the past decade, public housing in Scotland has been reduced, but there is no sign that the social engineering favoured by the hon. Member for Stirling has had any impact on the Conservative party's fortunes.
Secondly, it was argued that public housing was an economic problem for Scotland and that it was an inhibition on economic development. It is clear from studying the situation throughout the United Kingdom over the past few years that, in many ways, the housing market in the south of England has been much more of an economic problem for that area than the housing market in Scotland has been for Scotland. The preponderance of private housing in the south, with all the emphasis that that gives to a boom-bust cycle in the economy and over-investment in property, has been much more of a problem in terms of economic management than the degree of public housing has been in Scotland.
I ask the Minister to move away from the campaign against public housing in Scotland. He must realise that hundreds of thousands of Scots are entitled to live in good quality, rented accommodation in the public sector. If we are to get back to basics, let us get back to the basic provision of high-quality council and other public housing in Scotland. Any ideological Government drive against the public sector in Scotland should now be abandoned as not having fulfilled the political aspirations of the hon.

Member for Stirling but having condemned hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland to the abject misery of substandard housing over the past 10 years.

Mr. John McAllion: This document: is largely technical. Anyone in Scotland who happened to read it would not find out much about housing in Scotland because it is deliberately designed to be difficult to understand and interpret. The Government hope that they will be able to slip this document through the House without too much press coverage or awareness in Scotland of the way in which they are treating council housing.
This represents one of the few occasions when the House can debate council housing in Scotland; therefore, we should take advantage of this occasion and try to interpret the document. We should never forget that although few hon. Members live in council housing, hundreds of thousands of our constituents do so. The council housing sector remains important to constituents, although it may not be so important to hon. Members who represent them.
The experience of my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate, and who continue to speak about their surgeries in their constituencies, is one that almost all Labour Members can repeat. Every surgery that I have held in Dundee since 1987 has been dominated by the issue of council housing and the lack of decent, affordable council housing for those who need it. The Government have ignored that forum in Scotland for a considerable period.

Mr. Norman Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about Dundee. Does he conclude that the housing needs of the people of Dundee were a major factor in the recent by-election which we won so spectacularly?

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The Labour party in Dundee won a council seat back from the Scottish National party, which had held it for a considerable time. We won it back with a convincing majority. Indeed, the turning point in that by-election was when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) graced Dundee with his presence. Thereafter, the votes haemorrhaged towards the Labour party and away from the SNP. I invite the hon. Gentleman to return to east Dundee any time he wants to come—he reinforces Labour's position in that city every time he visits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) made an interestng point about the impact of council by-elections and the experience of hon. Members taking part in them. I remind him of the importance of debates on council housing, especially on the periphery of Scottish cities where council housing is predominant and of such a poor standard, where unemployment is high, where the crime rate is high and where the problem of drug abuse is common. My hon. Friend said that one of the most important things that can be done in terms of Government support for council housing in Scotland was to make funds available for various security measures to make council housing more secure for people who live in it.
In Hilltown, and especially the Maxwelltown area where there are such problems, Dundee district council must now spend part of its housing revenue account on putting in security cameras, security entrances, concierge systems and so on. That is the sort of thing with which the


council should be given direct assistance by the Government, but it gets absolutely nothing in housing support grant. It receives no help whatever to deal with all the problems that it faces. That is an absolute disgrace.
Given the condition of the housing stock in Dundee, it is a disgrace that we must divert part of the money which should be spent on the housing stock into security measures so that people can feel a bit safer in their homes. An even bigger disgrace is the fact that the local council gets no help from the Minister, or from the Government who are responsible ultimately for housing in Scotland.
Schedule 3 to the order refers to what we call the hostel portion, and those councils that will qualify for it in 1994–95. Twenty-one local authorities in Scotland qualify, but Dundee is not one of them. I remind the Minister that I intervened during his speech to ask what the level of homelessness in Scotland was. He replied that he would give the answer in a minute, but two, three, four and then five minutes passed, and the Minister sat down without giving the answer.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some 42,500 households applied to local authorities in Scotland to be considered as homeless. Some 72 per cent. of those households found permanent or temporary accommodation. Local authorities have statutory responsibility, especially for priority cases. Some of the other cases lost contact.

Mr. McAllion: I thank the Minister for those figures. Is he not ashamed of his boast that he is making about 2,000 places in hostels available to the homeless in Scotland? That is in no way adequate to meet the problems facing councils across the country. He says that Dundee council has a statutory responsibility to deal with the priority homeless cases. Why is he not giving Dundee any of the hostel portion? Why is Dundee not getting assistance from the Government to help with the homeless problem?
The Minister should go to some of the agencies that work with the homeless in London, particularly young homeless Scots. He would discover that the young homeless Scots who head towards London because they cannot find housing back in Scotland mainly come from Glasgow; in second place after Glasgow comes Dundee. What assistance is Dundee getting from the Minister next year in terms of support for the homeless? Absolutely nothing.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I set up a firm in Dundee recently, and all the 800 staff had no difficulty in finding housing. How extraordinary.

Mr. McAllion: What is extraordinary is that anyone in the House could begin to understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said. I did not understand a word of what he mumbled across the Chamber to me.
The idea that apportioning £2 million to 21 difficult local authorities in Scotland is in any way commensurate with dealing with the problem of homelessness is put in context by remembering the amount that local government reform will deny the new Dundee council. It will lose £2.25 million in terms of grant aid and expenditure. The Minister for Local Government and Planning tells me that that is not a significant sum. If £2·25 million is not a significant sum, neither is the £2 million that the Minister

has allocated to 21 different authorities across Scotland to help them tackle the homeless problem. The Minister should begin to take that on board.
The order deals also with the different authorities in Scotland that get housing support grants from the Government. The Minister knows that there are 56 different housing authorities in Scotland. Only 29 of them—just over half—will receive any housing support grant from the Government. That means that 27 different housing authorities in Scotland will get absolutely nothing, among them Dundee. Dundee has had nothing from the Government during the past 10 years in terms of housing support grant.
Owner-occupation in Scotland is heavily subsidised through mortgage tax relief, and other forms of tenure are heavily subsidised through right-to-buy schemes, rent-to-mortgage schemes and stock transfers. Even the private sector is heavily subsidised through gro-grants. With that mind, does not the Minister think that it is an absolute disgrace that 27 different councils in Scotland do not receive a penny in subsidy from the Government for the council housing for which they are responsible?
The Minister was in Dundee recently when Wimpey opened the new private housing development in Mid Craigie. He and other Ministers authorised a grant of more than £2 million to Wimpey Homes to allow them to build private houses for sale on the market and to make a big profit for Wimpey Homes in the process. Is it not a disgrace that the Minister can subsidise the profits of private house builders at a time when he gives nothing to 27 councils across the country? If he does not think that that is a disgrace, it is time he recognised that it is and it is his responsibility to do something about it.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the taxpayer directly provides housing support to pay for people's rent, that money is paid indirectly to the individual and that it goes into the coffers of the housing department? Does he agree that that amounts to many millions of pounds?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman is referring to housing benefit, not housing support. I shall tell him of my experience with housing benefit. One of the cases at my recent surgery was about housing benefit. It involved a constituent, who was a single parent with three children, who had a private flat in Dundee because access to council housing had not been available to her. She had been living at the address for three and a half to four years. The Government changed the regulations and qualifications for housing benefit. She received notification that she no longer qualified for housing benefit in private accommodation because the rent was too high and that she should move out of the private accommodation and into council accommodation.
My constituent appealed against the decision. Because her landlord got wind of the fact that the council was challenging her right to housing benefit, he has given her notice to quit. She will have to get out of the home that she and her family have known for the past four years and move into the council sector—and not into good housing in the council sector, because the good council housing has been lost through the right to buy and other measures that the Government have introduced.
She will be asked to move into areas of Dundee that are euphemistically called areas of low demand—areas where


nobody wants to live, where crime, vandalism, unemployment and drug abuse are prevalent. She and her family have been put at risk because the Government are denying them housing benefit. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) should not tell me that everybody's needs are looked after. Those who depend on the council sector do not have their needs looked after by the Government.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am not aware of the situation in Dundee, but I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with much interest. What about the father of those children? Is he responsible for their upkeep?

Mr. McAllion: You would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I started on the Child Support Agency. The fathers who are being chased are those whose wives depend on income support. Anyone who does not depend on income support is not chased by the Child Support Agency. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that that is the case, he does not have any working-class constituents.[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the debate.

Mr. McAllion: I shall follow your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and get back to the debate and not pursue that matter any further.
Before the hon Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) sneers, let me say that the father could have been dead; I have no idea about him. The hon. Gentleman should not
As the Minister will be aware, Inside Housing, which is read by all housing professionals in Scotland and is regarded as one of the most prestigious magazines dealing with housing in Scotland, dealt with the order in its issue of 28 January. It stated:
Scottish local authority tenants face steep rent rises next year following the government's anouncement of a £10 million cut in housing support grant last week.
Hon. Members should not be under any illusion as to what the order represents. It represents a £10 million cut in housing support grant to be made available to local authorities. This year, there was £35·9 million in housing support grant; next year, there will be only £27·5 million. As Inside Housing says, that means an average increase of 5 per cent. in council sector rents next year, and the Minister has admitted as much.
It is a case of double standards, not "back to basics". The Government parade around the country, boasting about low inflation, but they then increase inflation by putting up rents at twice the level of inflation. Why is it that only council sector tenants have to pay higher rents when everybody else's rents have been kept in line with inflation? It is because of a vile, anti-council tenant policy which has been pursued by successive Ministers.

Mr. Barry Porter: I seek some information, because a question was asked some time ago and it was not answered. Perhaps, in relation to Dundee, the hon. Gentleman will say how many void houses there are, how long they have been in existence—

Mr. Canavan: Empty houses.

Mr. Porter: They are called void in England.
Will the hon.Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) also say what monetary effect that has on the Dundee local authority? Before I cast my vote, I should very much like to know what the local authority is doing.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman would do better not to intervene in Scottish debates because he shows his ignorance of the reality of housing conditions in Scotland. It is that some district councils have houses which they cannot let—houses which are available to be let but in which people are frightened to live as a result of the general conditions in the district in which they are located.
If Conservative Members do not understand that there are vast tracts of cities in this country in which people are frightened to live because of the state to which the Government have reduced those districts, it is time that they began to do so, instead of trying to score cheap debating points. We are speaking about real conditions in which people have to live, not making pure debating points, as Conservative Members try to do with their debating skills.
Earlier, the Minister spoke about the Government's commitment to maintaining the physical condition of Scotland's housing. Has he not read the national housing conditions survey which was carried out by Scottish Homes on his behalf, which showed that 423,000 dwellings in Scotland suffered from damp, serious condensation or mould and that 3·5 per cent. of that number—nearly 15,000 houses—suffered from all three conditions at the same time? Yet he speaks about the Government's commitment to maintaining the physical stock of housing in Scotland. Let him try to tell the people who live in that housing that the Government are committed to maintaining the stock of the house in which they live. The Government are not committed and I will never be convinced that they are.
I have spoken for long enough and I do not want to give the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) a heart attack. I would not want to be responsible for any further by-elections. I must, however, tell the Minister that the difference between the people who live in the council housing sector in Scotland and everyone else is simply that they do not vote Tory, and for that reason they are not a priority for the Government. Unlike the tenants of Westminister city council, there will be no designated housing policy for them because there is no reward to be had from that for the Conservative party in Scotland.
The Government are simply writing off council housing in Scotland because they believe that council house tenants vote Labour. The Government want to change people's voting patterns so they are trying to destroy council housing. Their priority is tenure change instead of the priority that will be the priority of the next Labour Government when a Scottish parliament is set up, and that is to ensure that everyone in our country gets a decent house which they can afford, and which is a decent place in which to live.

Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words, especially after the robust and sincere speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). I think that the only mistake that he made was in giving way to some of the Conservative Members who have riot been sitting through what has been an interesting debate, to


which, to be fair, the Minister and some other Conservative Members from Scottish constituencies made useful contributions. It is a pity that it has been spoiled by some sedentary interventions and one or two standing interventions.
As in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Dundee, East, concern about housing features as a major issue at the surgeries that I hold every week in my constituency. The second most urgent subject mentioned by constituents is problems arising from the Child Support Agency, which is astonishing. Until a few years ago, it used to be the poll tax but, thankfully, we do not have that any more and now the agency has taken the place of the poll tax in the extent of the problems that it causes. It is taking the place of the poll tax in the way in which it is making Conservative Members, and especially members of the Government, unpopular, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.
I find that, apart from maintenance problems, many difficulties are experienced by people who seek transfers to smaller houses or to larger houses—in most cases, families to smaller houses. Throughout Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley the sale of council houses has distorted the available stock. As no replacement stock has been provided, it is difficult for even the most sensitive and understanding local authority—I have that in Cumnock and Doon Valley, although not in Kyle and Carrick—to find appropriate houses for people seeking transfers. That causes great hardship.
The problem could be solved overnight if the Government would release the money that is available from council house sales for the building of new council houses. That would be the sensible thing to do. It would also provide jobs for people in regions of high unemployment. Housing and unemployment problems could be dealt with substantially overnight.
My next point relates to an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). Many of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend, live in houses owned by Scottish Homes. Whenever people are asked their preference, they say that they want Scottish Homes to continue as their landlord or, if that is not possible—as unfortunately appears to be the case—they prefer the local authority to take over
Those people particularly do not want to be part of housing associations. They do not want to be part of a housing authority black hole or to be under a private landlord, especially when it is unclear where accountability lies. To whom are housing association members accountable? Technically, in some ways they are accountable to Scottish Homes, to the funding body or to the Government. However, in reality, they have no direct accountability in the way that local authorities have accountability.
Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden rightly said, the tenants are not given the opportunity of exercising those options. Scottish Homes says that it wants to get out of house ownership so that that option is unfortunately not available. I pressed Sir James Mellon on that and he said that his board would not accept that option. He said that Scottish Homes was going to get out of house ownership and house rental.
The option of local authority ownership is also not available. Council tenants are left with Hobson's choice.
I want to amplify the point I made earlier about the homeless hostel in Ayr. It is astonishing that a great deal of money—thousands of pounds—has been spent on Landsborough house; and the Secretary of State should be aware of what is happening as he lives near by. The house was named in memory of the late James Landsborough, who was an excellent councillor on Kyle and Carrick district council. However, Tory-controlled Kyle and Carrick district council is showing its lack of foresight by saying that all that money will be wasted because Landsborough house is to be demolished for new commercial development which the council has proposed for the site.
What is to happen to that expenditure? Surely there should be reference to the district auditor. Surely the Secretary of State should examine the matter. We hear criticism of other councils, but we seldom hear Kyle and Carrick taken to task, and I suspect that I know why.

Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) wishes to raise a point of order because she is wearing a hat. Is that the case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any hon. Member who wants to raise a point of order can do that. It is entirely up to the hon. Member.

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The remarks of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) are impertinent, improper and insulting to a colleague in the House. The hon. Gentleman should be a gentleman and withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Robathan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a new Member of the House, I thought that one wore a hat in the House only if one wished to raise a point of order. I did not think that my remarks were at all disrespectful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I inform the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that the hat is used if a Member wishes to raise a point of order during a Division. To the best of my knowledge, we are not in the middle of a Division at the moment.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) shows how green he is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to the debate.

Mr. Foulkes: Indeed. The hon. Member for Blaby is not just disrespectful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey); he is disrespectful to all the people in Scotland who are concerned about housing because he has intervened in such an infactile way on several occasions during the debate.
It is ridiculous and it will create a great deal of hardship—

Dr. Godman: I have never seen the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) before.

Mr. Foulkes: Well, unfortunately, my hon. Friend will see a lot more of him. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will not dignify the hon. Member for Blaby by continuing to refer to his infantile interventions.
What is far more important is the question of rents in Scotland. At present the average is £26·51 per week, yet the Government assume that the figure will be £35·86 in the next financial year, despite the fact that, in the calculation of the housing support grant, they are assuming an increase of 5 per cent. Anyone who can do the simplest arithmetic will realise that the difference between the two figures that I have just quoted is much more than 5 per cent. The local authorities will have to find a great deal of money to make up the difference. They will be underfunded by many millions of pounds.
I should like to conclude with a brief reference to the Cumnock and Doon Valley district council. The council, whose area has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the whole of Great Britain, will receive no housing support grant and no hostel support grant for this year or next year. That is an absolute disgrace. In addition to its high unemployment rate, the area is the home of people on very small incomes. Its residents work in the textile and other industries in which wages are very low indeed.
The whole tenor of this debate has been meanness on the part of the Government—the worst meanness in housing that I have known for a very long time. The provision of affordable decent housing is a basic right, and it is about time the Government understood that.

Mrs. Fyfe: I should like, by leave of the House, to wind up on behalf of the Opposition. Seven Opposition Members have spoken in the debate, but we have had a contribution from only one Conservative—the uncharacteristically brief speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
I have to say that it was utterly trivial and childish of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) to make the point that he made when my colleagues were dealing most sincerely and passionately with the needs of their constituents, who worry deeply about the state of housing in Scotland. People outside must despair of Parliament and must wonder how aware are some of its Members of the needs of their people.
As I want to leave the Minister time to answer some of the important questions that have been put to him, I shall be brief. Will he please answer the question about assured tenancies and secure tenancies and the rights of women who are separated from their husbands? That question was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).
The Minister should stop making ludicrous overestimates of rental income and ludicrous under-estimates of management and maintenance costs. That is his way of distorting the housing support grant calculations. Will he, in future, print a detailed and informative housing support grant order and, while he is about it, stop talking about capital allocations—a term meant only to confuse?
Does the Minister intend to fund a programme to ensure that homeless youngsters and battered women have somewhere to go—that there is adequate hostel accommodation?
As time is short, I shall not quote the Scottish Homes survey, as I intended to do. The Minister commissioned Scottish Homes to undertake the survey. He has only to go back and read it again. Last year, he warned us not to vote against the corresponding order, saying that if we did, the housing authorities would get nothing.
I have heard nothing to make me change my mind about urging my hon. Friends not to vote for this order. Let them vote against it and tell the Minister to meet COSLA again and to re-read his own housing survey so that some realism may be built into his estimates. Only then shall we see some sense and humanity in the funding of our housing.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am very glad of the opportunity to respond to this debate.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked why Dundee did not receive the hostels portion of the housing support grant. The answer is quite simple: Dundee does not have any housing department hostels. If it were to provide such hostels, it would certainly qualify for that portion. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 5·5 per cent. of the council housing stock in Dundee is empty. I hope that the hon. Member will use his good offices to encourage the council to bring more of its stock back into use.

Mr. McAllion: I will use my good offices to make that 5·5 per cent. of housing stock available for rent, if the Minister will give the council the money to put it in a fit condition to rent.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We will certainly bear in mind Dundee's bids before the final allocations are made in a few weeks' time.
As the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), much is happening in respect of rural Scotland. Scottish Homes has produced 1,700 additional homes in rural areas, and £3·3 million was provided for that purpose during 1992–93. An evaluation of the rural demonstration areas has been undertaken and the results will be published later this year. Per capita, rural areas receive more in local authority allocations that the average for the rest of Scotland.
Scottish Homes is looking carefully at how it may bring vacant stock back into use. It held discussions with the Forestry Commission and the Scottish Landowners Federation. I repeat that an additional £3 million was made available to Scottish Homes to enable further progress to be made.

Mr. Adam Ingram: indicated dissent.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must be realistic. Many vacant houses in Scotland are in the private sector.

Mr. Ingram: Rubbish.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." I know that a great many public sector houses should be brought back into use.

Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware that not one tenant has been placed in any of the 80 brand new houses in my constituency built by East Kilbride development corporation and available for occupancy since last November? Why? Because the Government are trying to force housing associations into the town. Those houses should be allocated now. They have been empty since November.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is the Minister responsible for new town housing, is in his place and will


have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have little doubt that there will be rapid progress in the coming months, in relation to those houses.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked for the release of council house receipts. They are already released to public authorities in Scotland. We estimated that £230 million would be raised from council house receipts this year. In fact, the figure is £268 million—and those entire receipts go the public sector, which will be greatly to its benefit. That sum increases the overall sum to be spent on public sector stock to £440 million.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) put the case for Glasgow. Last year, Glasgow's housing revenue account produced a surplus of more than £60 million. In those circumstances, there is no need for additional Exchequer support. Housing support grant is a deficit subsidy. Glasgow is projected to have a relatively small deficit next year.

Mrs. Fyfe: The Minister visited Glasgow and saw its housing need. Does he really believe that level of housing support grant comes anywhere near meeting the needs of the people of Glasgow for decent housing?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. The housing support grant is perfectly fair, when one bears in mind that Glasgow set an average rent increase for next year of only 2·8 per cent.—which we estimate is well below the national average.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) spoke about security. In urban regeneration schemes, we give priority to installing strong security systems—and Glasgow district council has been doing so in the multi-storey flats at Castlemilk. I support that policy, and the hon. Gentleman's comments will not be lost on that district council.
The hon. Member for Springburn said that a housing association had increased rents by 50 per cent. I am aware that in certain circumstances—for example, on a change of tenancy—rents may be substantially increased, but secured or assured tenants would not pay such increases. That would be contrary to the terms and conditions of their tenancies.
I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Springburn would give me the details in writing and I shall consider them thoroughly.
We have been consulting on the question of changing from a secured tenancy to an assured tenancy, because there has been an inconsistency in the way in which housing associations have interpreted the law. We have received responses to that consultation, but there is a case pending. Milnbank housing association is challenging the rent officers and we are awaiting the outcome of that case. We shall bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and if he will give me the details, I shall look into it.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Milnbank housing association is in my constituency. Scottish Homes is leaving Milnbank to take the legal action through the courts and Scottish Homes is willing to pay part only of the legal costs. I hope that if that is a test case in which the Government are interested, they will take all the costs on boards and not

burden the rent payers of the Milnbank housing association, which operates in only a small part of my constituency.
I shall be able to furnish the Minister with cases in my constituency where rents have been increased substantially and I hope that he will look into them.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the case that he mentioned of the increase of more than 50 per cent. As I said, the Government will not make a decision until after the outcome of that case. On the issue of homelessness—

Dr. Godman: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have taken a large number of measures to deal with homelessness. We have provided some £27 million for extra capital allocations, we have provided more than £10 million for homelessness under the urban programme and, of course, we have provided the hostels portion of the housing support grant, which has been debated tonight. We have also provided cash incentive schemes and we are providing substantial support to the voluntary organisations.
In the past week, Scottish Homes has announced that it was promoting lead tenancy arrangements, whereby empty private property is leased to housing associations for letting to homeless families, and that it was using new, furnished accommodation grants for housing associations to encourage provision of accommodation for the homeless.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. A. Godman), whose constituency I shall be visiting before long.

Dr. Godman: May I say how pleased I am that the Minister has accepted my invitation to visit certain housing schemes in my constituency.
If a housing association threatened a tenant with an assured tenancy, what powers would the housing association ombudsman have to overturn such a decision?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The housing association ombudsman is in post and his recommendations in cases of maladministration will be carefully considered by the Scottish Office as soon as it receives them. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is free to refer cases to the ombudsman.
As the House will know, the housing scene has changed dramatically over the past few years.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Mr. Watson: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I still have a lot to say—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is too much noise.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If I give an obvious example, Scotland has overtaken England in the percentage of public sector houses sold to sitting tenants. There is 0·5 per cent. more in Scotland.
We all know that the scene is changing greatly. More and more local authorities are accepting that their role need not be confined to the direct provision and management of their own housing stock. Increasingly, they are realising


that housing needs may be met most effectively by acting in an enabling role and by co-operating with Scottish Homes, housing associations and the private sector to jointly plan investment and provide homes for their areas. There are now some 42 strategic agreements with local authorities and those are bearing fruit. Only this morning, I was in Falkirk, from where the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) comes, and saw a successful development which involved the district council.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. When I stand, the hon. Gentleman must sit.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the debate should end in such confusion. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, others must resume their seats. Does the Minister wish to give way or not?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West, his constituent, the district council, Scottish Homes and the developer had an extremely successful housing development in the small urban renewal initiative. Conservative Members warmly welcome partnerships such as that: it is working, and it will continue to work. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 250.

Division No. 123]
[11.30 pm


AYES



Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Aitken, Jonathan
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butterfill, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Congdon, David



Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Booth, Hartley
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bowls, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dicks, Terry


Brandreth, Gyles
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dunn, Bob


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh





Eggar, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moate, Sir Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawkins, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pickles, Eric


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Horam, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)






Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Thurnham, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sims, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tracey, Richard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trend, Michael


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Soames, Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Speed, Sir Keith
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walden, George


Spink, Dr Robert
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spring, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sproat, Iain
Ward, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stephen, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sweeney, Walter
Wilkinson, John


Sykes, John
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Thornton, Sir Malcolm





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Corston, Ms Jean


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cox, Tom


Armstrong, Hilary
Cryer, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tarn


Battle, John
Darting, Alistair


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Benton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Don


Berry, Dr. Roger
Donohoe, Brian H.


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradley, Keith
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Enright, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Etherington, Bill


Burden, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Byers, Stephen
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Cann, Jamie
Fraser, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fyfe, Maria


Clapham, Michael
Galbraith, Sam


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gapes, Mike


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Garrett, John


Clelland, David
George, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gerrard, Neil


Coffey, Ann
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Connarty, Michael
Godman, Dr Norman A.





Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Miller, Andrew


Graham, Thomas
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hendron, Dr Joe
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoey, Kate
Parry, Robert


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pickthall, Colin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L.


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pope, Greg


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, John


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Illsley, Eric
Purchase, Ken


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Randall, Stuart


Jamieson, David
Raynsford, Nick


Janner, Greville
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rendel, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jowell, Tessa
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S.
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Leighton, Ron
Sedgemore, Brian


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



McAllion, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCartney, Ian
Snape, Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Stevenson, George


McMaster, Gordon
Stott, Roger


McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McWilliam, John
Tipping, Paddy


Madden, Max
Turner, Dennis


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Vaz, Keith


Mahon, Alice
Wallace, James


Marek, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Watson, Mike


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Welsh, Andrew


Martlew, Eric
Wicks, Malcolm


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Brian


Meale, Alan
Winnick, David


Michael, Alun
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wray, Jimmy






Wright, Dr Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Jack Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.

ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Energy Conservation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenses of any Minister under the Act, and
(b) any increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Chapman.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Motion made, and Question put,

That Mr. Robert Jackson be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Richard Tracey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Meigle Cottage Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome this opportunity to speak about Meigle cottage hospital, which is a popular cottage hospital in my constituency. Consequently, it would be against Government policy for it to be closed—unless, of course, the Government can demonstrate that there are conclusive and undoubted logical reasons for the closure. I hope clearly to demonstrate that according to, first, the regional council, secondly the district council and thirdly Scottish Enterprise, Tayside, that the population projection figures used by the health board are neither conclusive nor undoubted.
I shall show that, contrary to the health board's claims, Meigle as it stands is a perfectly satisfactory clinical hospital.
The hospital was a gift from Mrs. Cox of Cardean and was built in memory of her late husband. Sadly, the hospital suffered a fire soon after it was built and had to be built a second time. Mrs. Cox had the hospital rebuilt. No one can dispute that it was a memorial gift to the community.
Mrs. Cox gave an endowment that guaranteed the financial viability of the hospital. There was no public subscription and no public sector funds were involved. Indeed, until the national health service was created there was no need for public money to be involved in the hospital. I shall read from a letter that appeared in the Dundee Courier on 4 February 1994, which I believe sums the hospital up. It is headed
Meigle Hospital—desecration?
Sir,—As the oldest surviving grandchild of Mrs. Cox of Cardean who gave the Meigle Cottage Hospital to the community, I note that very little has been said about the fact that it was built in memory of her late husband.
Surely the Government action in closing it is akin to the desecration of a gravestone?
That is signed by Betty Ogilivy-Wedderburn.
The ground conditions, the gift conditions and the absence of public financial input make Meigle a unique and special case. The building and ground may not be used for any other purpose. I have a copy of the ground title, the disposition by Sir George Kinloch Bt. of 4 May 1915, from which I shall read an extract.
It says that the ground may not be used as a
tavern or public house or for the manufacture or sale of any ale beer porter wine whisky or other spirituouse or malt liquors or for the carrying on of any trade manufacture or business or for any purpose that might affect or deteriorate the vale or amenity of the adjoining lands".
The heirs are determined to enforce those provisions.
This popular cottage hospital is supported by all the GPs in Meigle, Alyth, Coupar Angus, Neutyle, Muirhead, Birkhill and Blairgowrie. It is supported by the churches, the health council for the whole of Tayside, the regional council, the district council and the community councils, all of which believe that Blairgowrie cannot cope. There will be too few beds to handle the demand from the Blairgowrie and Meigle catchment areas. The new extension at Blairgowrie, which is being constructed, provides eight extra beds.
Meigle has 12 beds, so there will be four fewer beds after the extension, in a catchment area where the


combined population is growing and continues to grow. The Meigle occupancy rate is very high—more than 80 per cent. I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) because of his interest in these matters. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that in summer and winter we have a huge transient population in the catchment area.
I will read from one letter of the many hundreds that I have received, but it explains clearly the situation:
My father, a widower living alone in Darkfaulds, Blairgowrie … was rushed to Ninewells hospital in December 1993 for major bowel surgery …which left my 73-year-old father extremely weak and traumatised.
Several days after the operation I received a telephone call from his Ninewells ward at 9.45 pm to advise me that his bed was required to enable them to carry out more operations before Christmas. They had inquired at Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital but they had no beds so they would like him to go home where the District Nurse could carry out bed baths, a home help could pop in and could we arrange for someone to keep an eye on him! I was stunned. Here was my father unable to get out of his chair himself, having to be supported when he walked to the toilet, having an infection in his arm where the drip had been and suffering from shock, being asked to go home to live alone.
Unbelievable!
The daughter who was writing to me does not live near him at all, as is true in so many rural constituencies.
The letter continued:
The next day I telephoned his family doctor (Dr. Sandy Young) who arranged for him to get a bed in Meigle Cottage Hospital. In Ninewells that day, the staff explained to me that they were only there to carry out operations, not for the recuperation of patients!!
My father cannot remember the journey from Dundee to Meigle due to his state of shock. The staff at Meigle were excellent, and after two and a half weeks there, he was able to go home and cope for himself. While he was in Meigle, the staff assured me that he would not be discharged until he was fit enough to go home. What a relief that was for us.
I should add that my father is a diabetic and had been seriously ill on three occasions during 1993 so it would have been very worrying to us if Meigle Cottage Hospital had not been able to admit him.
That letter is typical of many that I could produce.
Is it any wonder that the people and general practitioners in the Blairgowrie and Meigle catchment areas are questioning the clinical judgment and population projections used by the health board, which until now have been accepted by the Government? The population projections of the general registrar's office are suspect. They do not take adequate account of the large number of planning approvals given or of the number of houses that are currently under construction. For example, Perth and Kinross district planning department advises me that, between 1981 and 1991, there was a 7·2 per cent. increase in population—from 15,499 to 16,613—in the Blairgowrie, Coupar Angus, Alyth and Eastern Landward area, all of which Blairgowrie copes with.
It is true that, in the small village of Meigle itself, there was a small decline in population, from 908 to 874, but Meigle's catchment area of Airlie, Eassie, Newtyle and Ruthven, experienced an increase of 4·8 per cent., from 1,401 to 1,469. The combined population figures for the catchment areas, excluding Muirhead and Birkhill, show an increase of 6·44 per cent.—or 1,148 people—in the period during which the health board has been determined to close the hospital. There has been a massive increase in population. The Muirhead and Birkhill practice, which also

uses the hospital, has increased its patients by 320 in the past three years and as of today has three patients in Meigle Cottage Hospital.
It is amazing how bits of paper arrive on one's desk. I have been advised today that 66 new accommodations are to be built by the East Perthshire housing association in Blairgowrie. Every week I am being advised of additional houses being built. In Dundee, figures cited by Scottish Enterprise Tayside—another independent body—show clearly that, although there has been a decrease in population in Tayside, with a minus figure of 8,074, in the Perth and Kinross area there has been an increase of 4,275, well over 1,000 of which—1,700—were in the Meigle-Blairgowrie catchment area. The age distribution figures show clearly that that area has a lot of young families who use hospital facilities and a lot of elderly people.
More than 500 houses with planning approval are to be built in Blairgowrie alone. If Alyth, Newtyle and the others are added, we can expect an increase of another 1,500 within the next couple of years or so. Over the past five years, during what can only be described as difficult building industry conditions, the following houses have been completed: in Blairgowrie, 50 per annum; in Coupar Angus, two per annum; in Alyth, four per annum; in Eastern Landward, 20 per annum; and in Newtyle, six per annum. I suggest that, as the market improves—and it is improving—those figures will substantially increase and we will get nearer the figures that we had in the mid-1980s.
In that case, Blairgowrie and district, which has become a commuter area, will again demonstrate clearly that young families want to come to live there. The number of expensive houses that are planned or are being built will mean that a larger number of elderly people will retire to the area. The young and the elderly require hospital facilities.
The number of beds in the Blairgowrie and Meigle areas and the cost per patient per day are important factors. I shall not disturb the House tonight with all the figures other than to say that Meigle, if we had two extra beds there, could have a cost of about £90 per patient. We need those beds, which would give us the lowest figure for bed occupation costs in the whole of Tayside region. What is the real cost of retaining Meigle? It is less than 0·2 per cent. of the Tayside health board's revenue budget. I firmly believe that we need all the beds at Blairgowrie plus those at Meigle, and probably more.
My case is not built on the popularity of the hospital alone; it is built on the reality of the population growth since 1981, when I first had to do battle with the health board. My case is built on the reality of house building and planning consents over the next five to 10 years. It is built on the fact that neither I, nor the doctors, my constituents and the local authority officials accept the logic of the health board's case. I shall not be deterred from pursuing the matter further.
The Minister responsible, my noble Friend Lord Fraser, tells me that he did not receive my letter requesting a meeting. I cannot forget that there have been other problems within his Department; Glasgow is just one example. It is with deep sadness and without any malice that I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that this matter is so important to me and my constituents that I will use every parliamentary device available to expose the flaws within the Department and


the ghastly way in which the health board has ridden roughshod over the clinical judgment of the GPs and the wishes of the people.
If the hospital closure goes ahead, the way in which I shall deal with the matter could lead to demands for resignations, especially in view of the letter I received from my noble Friend Lord Fraser on 13 January. He tells me that almost £500,000 will be needed to bring Meigle up to standard. So what? What about all the money spent when the hospital was first built? At today's values, that is an enormous amount.
My noble Friend goes on:
Enhanced accommodation and a wider range of services are available in Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital situated only 8 miles away.
If the matter was not so tragic, that could be funny. That must be the distance as the crow flies. I invite the Minister to walk that eight miles; he will not get anywhere near the hospital. The Minister's letter refers to the
split between the 2 closely situated hospitals".
They are not closely situated. By public transport, the distance between the hospitals at Meigle and at Blairgowrie is nearer 15 miles.
The letter says that one site offers
better accommodation and a wider range of service provision.
I believe that Meigle is perfectly adequate. The letter continues:
The Health Board has in particular undertaken to ensure that people will have a choice of recuperating in Blairgowrie rather then remaining in Perth or Dundee if they wish to be closer to home.
What about all the letters I have received which ask where, if Meigle closes, people are to go? I have not referred this evening to just one isolated letter.
The matter is out of all proportion to the size of the hospital. My constituents, without exception, feel that the proposed closure is wrong and mistaken, that it borders on being malicious and that it desecrates a memorial that was funded adequately at the beginning and which would have been functioning adequately today if it had not been acquired by the national health service. All that must be answered for. That is why, in the final analysis, my right hon. Friend is given the opportunity in law to make the judgment. Only he can take into account all aspects of the background to the case. I am confident that he will.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in securing a debate on the closure of Meigle cottage hospital. I understand the importance that he attaches to the matter, and the strong attachment to the hospital that has developed locally.
The services provided by Meigle hospital have, over the years, been much valued by local people who have appreciated the ready access to acute care or the choice of convalescing close to home after treatment in Dundee or Perth. This debate gives us an opportunity to consider the planned transfer of those services to Blairgowrie and to address the concerns that have been raised by local residents recently since my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State announced the planned closure of Meigle cottage hospital.
What I hope to do tonight is explain the background to the planned transfer of services, the implications for patients and visitors and the adequacy of planned bed numbers in Blairgowrie in the light of projections of the

growth of the population in the area to which my hon. Friend referred, and especially growth in the population of the elderly.
Two main factors lie behind the decision to approve the health board's plans to transfer services from Meigle to Blairgowrie. First, with continuing medical advances and new techniques and technologies, Tayside health board has found, in common with all other health boards, that fewer acute beds are needed to deliver the same or an increasing level of care.
Secondly, Meigle cottage hospital is not suitable to deliver modern acute care. The health board faced a choice of investing £500,000 of capital to bring Meigle up to standard, and even then being left with a hospital with a poor lay-out and high running costs, or investing a similar sum at Blairgowrie cottage hospital to extend it to take on the work from Meigle and releasing about £280,000 of overhead costs which are currently tied into running services from two sites in close proximity for other health purposes.
In the light of those considerations, the health board, after much careful thought, decided to seek approval to close Meigle and transfer services to Blairgowrie. Blairgowerie has a wider range of services than Meigle and can offer better integrated care for patients. The health board canvassed widely for views on the proposed closure of Meigle and got the clear message form local residents that extended stays in Perth and Dundee were not an acceptable alternative to local care.
The health board has therefore made provision at Blairgowrie to ensure that anyone who would have expected to receive treatment or convalesce at Meigle will be offered the choice of care at Blairgowrie as an alternative to Perth or Dundee, and that the 56 general practitioner acute and long-stay beds at Blairgowerie will be used flexibly to meet local needs. There should therefore be no need for people to travel to, or remain in, Dundee and Perth longer than necessary.
That was taken into account when my noble and learned Friend and I considered the health board's proposals alongside the views expressed by the local people. We decided that, on balance, the benefits to patients of the more extensive range of care available at Blairgowrie outweighed the inconvenience to visitors of travelling to Blairgowrie. We therefore approved the health board's plans to close Meigle and transfer services to upgraded facilities at Blairgowrie.
As for the implications of the planned transfer of services for patients and their visitors, current trends show that in general four fifths of Meigle patients are directly under the care of local GPs. Those people will, under the planning new arrangements, be transferred to Blairgowrie.

Mr. Bill Walker: I understand clearly what my right hon. Friend is saying: there will be four beds fewer. If they cannot cope now, how will they cope with four beds fewer?

Mr. Lang: I have already covered my hon. Friend's point. I made it clear that the health board estimates that there will be a reduction in the need for beds as a result of changes in the length of stay of average patients. I can assure my hon. Friend that the health board has gone into this very carefully—as, indeed, has my noble and learned Friend.
I was referring to the implications of the transfer of services to patients of visits. The one fifth who presently use Meigle to convalesce prior to discharge will be given the choice of remaining in Perth of Dundee or convalescing at Blairgowrie. My hon. Friend referred to mileage, and those matters can be easily checked. My officials have been told by the health board that the distance between Meigle and Blairgowrie is seven miles along a bus route. They were informed that it takes around 25 to 30 minutes by bus and under 20 minutes by car to travel between Meigle and Blairgowrie.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lang: I must reply to the other points raised by my hon. Friend. I must press on, if he will forgive me.

Mr. Walker: rose—

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend has made his point. I am telling him what the health board told my officials. The matters can be checked and if, of course, it turns out that the information which I have been given is incorrect, I will correct it with my hon. Friend.
I understand that buses run hourly from Monday to Saturday, and two-hourly after 7 o'clock in the evening. Buses also run every two and a half hours on Sundays.
The average length of stay of a patient at Meigle is about 19 days. On average, about 190 people a year receive in-patient care and around 150 receive outpatient treatment in Meigle. I accept that, for those people and their visitors, there will indeed be the added inconvenience of travelling to Blairgowrie. In most cases, however, we are talking about a period of only two or three weeks offset against the ready access to X-ray, out-patient, geriatric and occupational therapy services, in addition to the full range of services provided from Meigle. In terms of the level care that can be provided, this is Worth the extra inconvenience for a couple of weeks.
Moreover, by withdrawing current services from Meigle, there is the opportunity to use the building as a community resource, and as a focus for day care and health and social care in Meigle. In September 1993, health board officers met the chairman of the local community council and the local regional councillor to discuss alternative uses for Meigle hospital, in the event that the board's proposals were accepted. Those discussions raised the possibility of various community care uses which might involve local community voluntary effort should they wish to be involved.
An approach to the social work department following those discussions progressed the possibility of using Meigle as a day care facility. I understand that subsequently both region and health board are now planning for this development. My hon. Friend mentioned costs. I should point out that Meigle now costs around £100 per in-patient day. Even with two extra beds at £90 a day, Meigle is still more expensive than Blairgowrie, whose costs are £76 per day.
The third main issue on which there has been much debate in recent weeks—my hon. Friend also raised it tonight—is whether the planned bed numbers at Blairgowrie cottage hospital are adequate to cope with the influx of activity from Meigle. Last week, my hon. Friend drew to my attention the detailed population statistics of

Perth and Kinross district council. My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State undertook to re-examine the population figures in conjunction with the projections used by Tayside health board. He also undertook to take into account the planning approvals granted in the area.
The main population trends in recent years have been a decline in the population of Meigle of between 3 and 4 per cent., and an increase in the population of Blairgowrie of around 8 per cent. In 1991, the district council issued building warrants for 200 homes in Blairgowrie on a phased programme of development which is on-going. That is likely to attract families to Blairgowrie, and to continue the trend of population growth in that area.
No similar developments are planned for Meigle and, if current trends continue, the population of Meigle is likely to continue to fall. In assessing the number of beds needed at Blairgowrie to provide for the transfer of services from Meigle, the health board took into account recent trends and the registrar-general's projections for the population of Perth and Kinross.
The health board's estimates indicated that the population of Blairgowrie and surrounding areas would rise from 14,500 to 18,500 by the year 2001. Those projections, on which health board plans were based, overestimate the population number significantly. The district council's statistics provided by my hon. Friend indicate that the current population is only 13,300, rather than 14,500 used in health board calculations. The health board paid particular attention to the projected growth in the number of people over 75, because older people tended to be heavy users of health services. Over the next 10 years, projections indicate that there are likely to be around 400 more people in the Blairgowrie/Meigle area.
Of those, between 50 and 60 will be over 75. The health board assesses that the health needs of those people, along with those of the existing residents of the area, can be met comfortably within the 56 beds to be provided at Blairgowrie.
Recent trends in both the acute and long-stay sectors of the health service show declining bed occupancy rates and shorter lengths of stay, with more people receiving care in their own homes or in a primary care setting. That is as much a trend in Perth and Kinross as elsewhere in Scotland, and it means that fewer beds are needed to provide the same level of care. Neither Meigle nor Blairgowrie hospitals are fully used at present. On average, there are two empty GP beds at Meigle and four at Blairgowrie. The health board assesses that the increased demand from the increasing population in the area will be more than offset by the continuing trends in bed usage.
The health board, however, has assured me that if its projections of bed use prove to be wrong and further beds are required, appropriate arrangements will be made at Blairgowrie to provide additional beds.
My hon. Friend also referred to the origins of Meigle cottage hospital and, in particular, the generous donation by the Cox family. As I mentioned, the health board and the regional council are planning for Meigle to be used to develop community day-care facilities and also respite care which will help people to remain at home in the local area. My present understanding is that that would meet the broad objectives of the original endowment. It would be the board's intention to seek to recommemorate the Meigle site when it transfers to a new community care use, thus allowing continuation of the association between the building and the local community.
In summing up, I compliment my hon. Friend on the close interest that he has taken in an important constituency interest. I can understand the concern that might be felt in some quarters at the recent announcement. I hope that what I have said will to some extent reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents, but I emphasise that my noble and learned Friend and I are presuaded that the health board has fully taken into account the likely changes in the population of Meigle and Blairgowrie in its planning and that it has planned adequate provision at Blairgowrie to provide for the transfer of services from Meigle.
We believe that local concerns to retain a valued local service have been met by Tayside health board in arranging for the transfer of services to Blairgowrie and that significant benefits to patients will result from the transfer of services which outweigh the inconvenience to visitors of

additional travel. Moreover, the planned changes pave the way for new community care developments and the provision of day-care facilities in Meigle, which will be of particular benefit to older people in the area.
I will, of course study further the Official Report of what my hon. Friend has said. I know that my noble and learned Friend intends to follow up his recent meeting with my hon. Friend and will write to him about the various points that were raised. I hope that, thereby, what I have said this evening and what is being followed up by my noble and learned Friend will help to put matters into a fuller perspective for my hon. Friend, and I again compliment him on securing the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve midnight.